ArticleCase reports in ophthalmology
False Positive Hemianopia.
Article in Case reports in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A 70-year-old woman was urgently referred for neuro-ophthalmic evaluation when a routine visual field test demonstrated a pattern of bilateral nasal hemianopia. Detailed inspection of the visual field study revealed the hemianopias to be artifactual for the following reasons: (1) it was performed with an excessive number of false positive responses; (2) the grey scale plot had white patches, consistent with abnormally high sensitivity; (3) the total deviation probability maps were normal, indicating that no tested points had poor scores. Confrontational visual field testing was normal in all zones for both eyes. Repeated visual field testing showed no evidence of a true hemianopia. Even automated visual fields with highly specific abnormalities can merely be testing artifact. Scrutinize all components of the report before determining the clinical implications.
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.