ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Etiologies of Acute Optic Neuritis in Thailand: An Observational Study of 171 Patients.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optic Neuritis Presentation and Outcomes: A Single-Center Experience From Northern Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2025Article
- Long-term Indian optic neuritis study (THE LION STUDY): clinical, imaging features and visual behavior of optic neuritis in Indian population over two decades.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of optic neuritis: A retrospective study at a tertiary medical center in Saudi Arabia.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2024Article
- The clinical profile of new-onset optic neuritis in arabs, a tertiary center experience in Kuwait.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Serum Vitamin D Levels and Status in Thai Optic Neuritis Subjects: A Case-Control Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the demographic patterns, clinical characteristics and etiologies of acute optic neuritis (ON).
methodsThis retrospective observational study included patients with acute ON who presented to a university hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, between January 2010 and March 2020. The demographic details, clinical characteristics and etiologies of acute ON were evaluated.
resultsA total of 171 patients were included in the study (78.4% [n=134] female; mean age 45 years [standard deviation 15.4 years]; 32.2% [n=55] bilateral involvement). The most common type of acute ON was idiopathic (51.5%), followed by neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD, 30.9%), other autoimmune disorders (9.9%), myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disorder (MOGAD, 5.3%), multiple sclerosis (MS, 1.8%), and postinfection (0.6%). In the other autoimmune disorders group, 2 patients developed systemic lupus erythematosus (1.2%), 2 Sjogren's syndrome (1.2%), 1 RA (0.6%), 1 anti-NMDAR (0.6%), 3 anti-Jo1 (1.8%), 2 c-ANCA (1.2%), 1 anti-centromere (0.6%), and 5 nonspecific autoimmune disorders (2.9%). In the idiopathic group, 38.6% developed single isolated ON, 1.8% relapsing isolated ON and 11.1% chronic relapsing inflammatory optic neuropathy.
conclusionThe most common form of acute ON in this study, similar to other Asian countries, was idiopathic. Idiopathic-ON shared some phenotypes with NMOSD and MOGAD. We also reported patients with anti-NMDAR, anti-Jo1, c-ANCA and anti-centromere disorders. Improvements in antibody detection have widened the range of possible etiologies of acute ON. The study highlighted the important role of antibodies in creating effective treatments in the future.
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.