ArticleScientific reports2021
Clinical characteristics of optic neuritis phenotypes in a 3-year follow-up Chinese cohort.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Comparison of macular changes according to the etiology of optic neuritis: a cross-sectional study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- A 10-Year Single-Center Study of the Clinical Characteristics of Optic Neuritis-Related NMOSD, MS, and Double Seronegative Optic Neuritis, Together with Factors Predicting Visual Outcomes.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Anti-inflammatory effect of miR-125a-5p on experimental optic neuritis by promoting the differentiation of Treg cells.Neural regeneration research · 2023Article
- Idiopathic Optic Neuritis Should Neither Be Defined as a Subtype nor an Early Sign of Multiple Sclerosis.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2023Article
- What's new in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder treatment?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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the clinical characteristics of optic neuritis (ON) with different phenotypes. This prospective study recruited patients with new-onset ON between January 2015 and March 2017 who were followed-up for 3 years. They were divided into the myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-seropositive (MOG-ON), aquaporin-4-seropositive (AQP4-ON), and double-seronegative (seronegative-ON) groups, and their clinical characteristics and imaging findings were evaluated and compared. Two-hundred-eighty patients (405 eyes) were included (MOG-ON: n = 57, 20.4%; AQP4-ON: n = 98, 35.0%; seronegative-ON: n = 125, 44.6%). The proportion of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity > 20/25 at the 3-year follow-up was similar between the MOG-ON and seronegative-ON groups; the proportion in both groups was higher than that in the AQP4-ON group (p < 0.001). Relapse rates were higher in the MOG-ON and AQP4-ON groups than in the seronegative-ON group (p < 0.001). Average retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness at 3 years was similar between the MOG-ON and AQP4-ON groups (63.41 ± 13.39 and 59.40 ± 11.46 μm, p = 0.476) but both were thinner than the seronegative-ON group (74.06 ± 11.14 μm, p < 0.001). Macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) revealed the same pattern. Despite RNFL and GCIPL thinning, the MOG-ON group's outcome was as favorable as that of the seronegative-ON group, whereas the AQP4-ON group showed unsatisfactory results.
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.