Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31385033›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2019

Visual acuity loss and development of ocular complications in white dot syndromes: a longitudinal analysis of 3 centers.

Lara Borrego-Sanz, Alejandro Gómez-Gómez, María Gurrea-Almela, Mar Esteban-Ortega, Esperanza Pato, David Díaz-Valle, Teresa Díaz-Valle, Santiago Muñoz-Fernández, Luis Rodriguez-Rodriguez, Madrid Uveitis Study Group

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lara Borrego-SanzOphthalmology Department, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Alejandro Gómez-GómezRheumatology Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
María Gurrea-AlmelaOphthalmology Department, Hospital Universitario de Móstoles, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
Mar Esteban-OrtegaOphthalmology Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía, Universidad Europea, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
Esperanza PatoRheumatology Department and Health Research Institute (IdISSC), Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Prof. Martín Lagos Street, 20840, Madrid, Spain.
David Díaz-ValleOphthalmology Department, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Teresa Díaz-ValleOphthalmology Department, Hospital Universitario de Móstoles, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
Santiago Muñoz-FernándezRheumatology Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofía, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
Luis Rodriguez-RodriguezRheumatology Department and Health Research Institute (IdISSC), Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Prof. Martín Lagos Street, 20840, Madrid, Spain. lrrodriguez@salud.madrid.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2869-7861
Madrid Uveitis Study Group
Hospital Clínico San Carlos · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESHospital Universitario de Móstoles · ES

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III CP12/03129
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the clinical prognosis among selected white dot syndromes (WDS) (birdshot chorioretinopathy (BRC), multifocal choroiditis, serpiginous choroidopathy (SC), and others) and to identify risk factors of poor visual prognosis.

methodsRetrospective longitudinal cohort study including 84 patients (143 affected eyes) diagnosed with WDS between 1982 and July 2017, followed up until loss of follow-up or December 2017, and recruited from three Uveitis Clinics (Madrid Community, Spain). Our main outcome measures were temporary or permanent moderate (corrected visual acuity in the Snellen scale < 20/50) or severe (< 20/200) vision losses, and development of new ocular complications. Incidence rates (IR) of the main outcome measures were estimated per 100 eye-years. Bivariate and multivariate Cox robust regression models analyzed the association of demographic- and clinical-related variables with vision loss.

resultsSC exhibited the greatest IR of vision loss, even in the multivariate models. Previous events of vision loss, presence of choroidal neovascularization, and cataracts exhibited worse visual prognosis. Monotherapy with immunosuppressive drugs but not combine therapy was also associated with higher IR of visual loss. Regarding new ocular complications, BRC showed the highest IR of epiretinal membrane and macular edema.

conclusionsSC presents the worst visual prognosis. Some ocular manifestations can identify patients with WDS at risk of a worse clinical evolution.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSpainTime FactorsVision, LowVisual AcuityWhite Dot SyndromesInflammatory chorioretinopathiesOcular complicationsVisual acuityVisual prognosisWhite dot syndromes

Identifiers

PMID31385033
OpenAlexW2966087929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.