Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32902756›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2021

Isolated-check visual evoked potential: a more sensitive tool to detect traumatic optic neuropathy after orbital fracture.

Yanjie Tian, Yinhao Wang, Ziyuan Liu, Xuemin Li

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Utility of isolated-check visual evoked potential technique in dysthyroid optic neuropathy.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yanjie Tian *Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, No. 49, Garden North Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Yinhao Wang *Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, No. 49, Garden North Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Ziyuan LiuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, No. 49, Garden North Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Xuemin LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, No. 49, Garden North Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China. lxmlxm66@sina.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4018-9974
Peking University · CN

Funding

National Science and Technology Major Project 2018Z × 10101004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo establish a more sensitive diagnostic tool for traumatic optic neuropathy (TON), we explored the diagnostic efficacy of isolated-check visual evoked potential (ic-VEP) for TON in orbital fracture and compared ic-VEP with pattern-reversal visual evoked potential (P-VEP) testing.

methodsThis was a prospective single-center study. A total of 137 eyes from 131 patients diagnosed between December 2016 and October 2019 with orbital fractures were included in the study. Injury history, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), visual field, computed tomography (CT), P-VEP, and ic-VEP data were collected. Parameters of ic-VEP (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR]) and P-VEP (peak latency and amplitude of P100) were compared and diagnostic accuracy was analyzed.

resultsTON was associated with worse BCVA than non-TON (median 0.52 versus 0.10 logMAR, P < 0.001). SNRs were negatively associated with the P100 peak latency while positively associated with the P100 amplitude. The sensitivity of ic-VEP for TON (79.6%) was higher than that of P-VEP (61.2%, P = 0.049), although this difference was not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. Using ic-VEP and P-VEP together could increase sensitivity (87.8%). Maximum areas under curve were obtained using the SNR criteria of 1.3, 1.47, and 1.54 at 8%, 16%, and 32% depth of modulation, respectively.

conclusionic-VEP was more sensitive than P-VEP in diagnosing TON, and a combination of the two examination tests was recommended. The use of ic-VEP as the new diagnostic standard technique for TON should be considered.

Indexed as

Optic Nerve InjuriesOrbital FracturesEvoked Potentials, VisualHumansProspective StudiesVisual AcuityDiagnostic efficacyOrbital fractureTraumatic optic neuropathyVisual evoked potential

Identifiers

PMID32902756
OpenAlexW3086229849

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.