ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2022
Clinical approach to vision loss: a review for general physicians.
Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The mediating roles of screen time and sleep duration in the association between extracurricular physical activity and visual acuity in primary school students.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A Five-Step Approach to Acute Vision Loss: A Practical Narrative Review for Clinicians.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- A Systematic Approach to Managing Acute Visual Loss: A Comprehensive Review of Literature.Cureus · 2026Review
- Sustained Neurotrophic Factor Co-Treatment Enhances Donor and Host Retinal Ganglion Cell Survival in Mice.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Indications of the SERPINE 1 variant rs1799768's role in anti-VEGF therapy resistance in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.PloS one · 2025Article
- Barriers to Eye Care for Adults in the United States and Solutions for It: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual loss describes temporary or permanent reduction in visual acuity and/or field. Its aetiology is diverse due to the contributions of the different neuro-ophthalmic structures (eye, optic nerve, and brain) to image formation and perception, but may be categorised into ocular causes (corneal, lenticular, vitreoretinal and macular) or optic neuropathies. Clinical evaluation of visual loss relies on thorough history and examination to guide further tests. In this article, we provide a practical overview of visual loss assessment for general physicians.
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.