ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia
Solitary circumscribed neuroma of the conjunctiva: Differential diagnosis from neurofibroma is a must?
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A 42-year-old male presented with a 4-week history of a mass in the right inferior palpebral conjunctiva close to the punctum. An excisional biopsy of the lesion and histopathological examination revealed that the mass was composed of Schwann cells with thin conical nuclei, fine chromatin, and unnoticeable nucleoli. Immunohistochemically, the spindle cells were diffusely and strongly positive for S100 protein. Neurofilament immunostaining was also positive, which highlighted axons. In light of these findings, the tumor was diagnosed as solitary circumscribed neuroma. A comprehensive evaluation for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2b was performed. However, no multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2b stigmata and no family history were detected. The diagnosis was therefore finalized as solitary circumscribed neuroma, which is considered as a rare condition. The differential diagnosis is based on the histopathological examination and immunohistochemical evaluation. As the tumor can be related with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2b, it is essential to systematically investigate for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2b in such cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.