ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Yield of Vitreous Biopsy and MYD88 Mutation Analysis in Vitreoretinal Lymphoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Ocular oncology and pathology · 2026Article
- Polymorphism in the TLR Adaptors of the Toll Signalling Pathway for Use in Livestock Breeding for Health Traits.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of vitreoretinal lymphoma in Chinese patients (2024).Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Review
- A comprehensive overview of diagnosis, imaging and treatment of vitreoretinal lymphoma.European journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Posterior Uveitis in Ocular-Involving Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and the Utility of Negative MYD88 L265P Testing in the Diagnosis.Ocular oncology and pathology · 2024Article
- Primary Vitreoretinal Lymphoma: Current Diagnostic Laboratory Tests and New Emerging Molecular Tools.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Update in Molecular Testing for Intraocular Lymphoma.Cancers · 2022Review
- Article
- Circulating cell-free DNA and IL-10 from cerebrospinal fluids aid primary vitreoretinal lymphoma diagnosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Comparative Molecular Analysis of Primary Central Nervous System Lymphomas and Matched Vitreoretinal Lymphomas by Vitreous Liquid Biopsy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Molecular diagnosis of vitreoretinal lymphoma.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVitreoretinal lymphoma (VRL) is the most common intraocular lymphoma (IOL). This can be either primary or secondary to the central nervous system lymphoma. The diagnosis of primary intraocular lymphoma (PIOL) currently relies on clinical diagnosis and cytological analysis of the vitreous or subretinal biopsy. Although most cases are diagnosed without much issue, the limited amount of vitreous fluid, subjectivity in cytological reporting, and special expertise in ocular pathology make the diagnosis challenging. MYD88 L265P mutation has been implicated to have diagnostic utility in PIOL. In this study, we screened consecutive vitreous biopsies for the presence of MYD88 L265P mutation to understand its diagnostic utility compared to conventional cytological analysis.
methodsCytological analysis and MYD88 L265P mutation by PCR-based sequencing and restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) were carried out on consecutive vitreous and subretinal biopsies collected from 21 patients. The diagnostic utility of the cytology and MYD88 L265P mutation analysis were compared.
resultsOut of the 21 patients, 15 had clinical suspicion of having PIOL. Out of these suspected cases of PIOL, nine were confirmed on follow-up, while six were diagnosed as other intraocular pathologies. Diagnostic utility of MYD88 L265P mutation analysis revealed a sensitivity of 88.9%, specificity of 91.6%, positive and negative predictive value of 88.9% and 91.7%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of 90.5% was achieved with the mutation analysis that shows the superiority of MYD88 in both ruling in and ruling out PIOL. The diagnostic utility of MYD88 L265P mutation was superior to conventional cytological analysis.
conclusionThe analysis of MYD88 L265P mutation is reliable and efficient in the diagnosis of PIOL.
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.