ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2022
Ophthalmological Findings in Youths With a Newly Diagnosed Brain Tumor.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated strabismus evaluation: a critical review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Visual field defects in children with brain tumors.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Early ophthalmological tumour signs and diagnostic interval in children with brain tumours.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Physical activity, health-related fitness, and physical performance in children with acquired hypothalamic dysfunction.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of pupil perimetry in detecting hemianopia under standard and virtual reality viewing conditions.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Pediatric eye movement-based perimetry: progress, pitfalls, and prospects.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Treatment and outcome of the Dutch Childhood Craniopharyngioma Cohort study: First results after centralization of care.Neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Neuro-ophthalmological disturbances in pediatric posterior fossa tumors: Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Visual impairment is an irreversible adverse effect in individuals who experienced a childhood brain tumor. Ophthalmological evaluation at diagnosis enables early detection of vision loss, decision-making about treatment, and when applicable, the timely use of visual interventions. However, awareness of visual impairment in clinical practice is suboptimal, and adherence to ophthalmological evaluation needs to be improved. Objective: To assess the prevalence and types of abnormal ophthalmological findings in youths with a newly diagnosed brain tumor. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this nationwide, prospective cohort study, youths aged 0 to 18 years with a newly diagnosed brain tumor between May 15, 2019, and August 11, 2021, were consecutively enrolled in 4 hospitals in the Netherlands, including the dedicated tertiary referral center for pediatric oncology care. Exposures: A standardized and comprehensive ophthalmological examination, including orthoptic evaluation, visual acuity testing, visual field examination, and ophthalmoscopy, was performed within 4 weeks from brain tumor diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were prevalence and types of visual symptoms and abnormal ophthalmological findings at brain tumor diagnosis. Results: Of 170 youths included in the study (96 [56.5%] male; median age, 8.3 years [range, 0.2-17.8 years]), 82 (48.2%) had infratentorial tumors; 53 (31.2%), supratentorial midline tumors; and 35 (20.6%), cerebral hemisphere tumors. A total of 161 patients (94.7%) underwent orthoptic evaluation (67 [41.6%] preoperatively; 94 [58.4%] postoperatively); 152 (89.4%), visual acuity testing (63 [41.4%] preoperatively; 89 [58.6%] postoperatively); 121 (71.2%), visual field examination (49 [40.4%] preoperatively; 72 [59.6%] postoperatively); and 164 (96.5%), ophthalmoscopy (82 [50.0%] preoperatively; 82 [50.0%] postoperatively). Overall, 101 youths (59.4%) presented with visual symptoms at diagnosis. Abnormal findings were found in 134 patients (78.8%) during ophthalmological examination. The most common abnormal findings were papilledema in 86 of 164 patients (52.4%) who underwent ophthalmoscopy, gaze deficits in 54 of 161 (33.5%) who underwent orthoptic evaluation, visual field defects in 32 of 114 (28.1%) with reliable visual field examination, nystagmus in 40 (24.8%) and strabismus in 32 (19.9%) of 161 who underwent orthoptic evaluation, and decreased visual acuity in 13 of 152 (8.6%) with reliable visual acuity testing. Forty-five of 69 youths (65.2%) without visual symptoms at diagnosis had ophthalmological abnormalities on examination. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that there is a high prevalence of abnormal ophthalmological findings in youths at brain tumor diagnosis regardless of the presence of visual symptoms. These findings support the need of standardized ophthalmological examination and the awareness of ophthalmologists and referring oncologists, neurologists, and neurosurgeons for ophthalmological abnormalities in this patient group.
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.