ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of a Novel Bayesian Decision-Making Algorithm for Vision Loss.
Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sudden Vision Loss as the First Sign of Sepsis-Bilateral Endogenous Endophthalmitis of UncommonMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current diagnostic aids for acute vision loss are static flowcharts that do not provide dynamic, stepwise workups. We tested the diagnostic accuracy of a novel dynamic Bayesian algorithm for acute vision loss. Seventy-nine "participants" with acute vision loss in Windsor, Canada were assessed by an emergency medicine or primary care provider who completed a questionnaire about ocular symptoms/findings (without requiring fundoscopy). An ophthalmologist then attributed an independent "gold-standard diagnosis". The algorithm employed questionnaire data to produce a differential diagnosis. The referrer diagnostic accuracy was 30.4%, while the algorithm's accuracy was 70.9%, increasing to 86.1% with the algorithm's top two diagnoses included and 88.6% with the top three included. In urgent cases of vision loss (
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.