ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2021
The evaluation of patients with optic disc edema: A retrospective study.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differentiation of optic disc edema and pseudopapilledema with deep learning on near-infrared reflectance images.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- A dataset of color fundus images for the detection and classification of eye diseases.Data in brief · 2024Article
- Diagnostic dilemma of papilledema and pseudopapilledema.International ophthalmology · 2024Review
- A Narrative Review on Neuro-Ophthalmological Manifestations That May Occur during Pregnancy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Optic Disc Swelling in Cancer Patients: Etiology and Implications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- The Clinical Profile of Unilateral and Bilateral Optic Disc Swelling in a Tertiary Center in Northern Malaysia.Cureus · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOptic disc edema is among major problems that neuro-ophthalmology clinics encounter. We intended to analyze patients with optic disc edema in this article.
methodsData related to the main complaint, associated systemic disease, visual acuity, characteristics of optic disc swelling, other ocular findings, topical or systemic drugs, treatment methods, follow-up examination, and related data of the patients were obtained retrospectively.
resultsThere were 77 female and 23 male patients in the study. Optic disc edema was detected bilaterally in 65 patients, unilaterally in 35 patients. The duration of the symptoms until the first application was 19.82±17.18 (0-90) days. There were no systemic disorders in 74 patients but diabetes mellitus in 11 patients, hypertension in four patients, coronary artery disease in three patients, urticaria in two patients, lymphoma in one, multiple sclerosis in one patient, mastoiditis in one patient, scleroderma in one, and pregnancy in two patients were detected. While 93 patients had no additional ocular findings, 2 had uveitis, 1 had corneal dystrophy, 1 had keratoconus, 1 had cataract, 1 had previous cataract surgery, and 1 had peripheral retinal degenerations. The major etiology of the optic disc edema was idiopathic intracranial hypertension, which was detected in 44 patients. In all these patients, bilateral optic disc edema was observed and 43 patients were given oral acetazolamide and one patient oral topiramate.
conclusionThe presence of optic nerve edema should be absolutely evaluated in patients presenting with symptoms of vision loss and increased intracranial pressure. The early diagnosis with fundoscopic examination may increase visual acuity in these patients.
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.