ReviewJournal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection2022
Choroidal sarcoid granuloma: a case report and review of the literature.
Review in Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraocular Metastasis: Differential Diagnosis and Management.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Choroidal Nodules in Ocular Sarcoidosis.Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2023Article
- Polarization-Diversity Optical Coherence Tomography Assessment of Choroidal Nevi.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- Optical Coherence Tomography in Inflammatory and Neoplastic Lesions Deforming the Choroidal Profile.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The pattern of sarcoid uveitis at a tertiary care center in Nepal.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Sarcoidosis-Related Uveitis: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChoroidal sarcoid granulomas are often diagnosed in patients without a prior history of sarcoidosis. They are often mistaken for choroidal metastasis, choroidal nevi, amelanotic choroidal melanomas, and uveal lymphomas; however, are easily treatable when accurately identified. OBSERVATIONS: We searched PubMed, Medline, and Scopus for English-Language case reports published before September 2021. Additionally, we presented a case of a 45-year-old woman with a right-sided amelanotic choroidal mass whose diagnosis was delayed by a COVID-19 infection. Of the 26 cases reported in the literature, 46% were female, 38% were African American, and 19% had bilateral involvement. There was a mean age of 42.15 years and a mean follow-up period of 27 months. The most common complaint was of a progressive, painless blurring of vision, and only five patients had been previously diagnosed with sarcoidosis. The choroidal granulomas were typically described as yellow lesions, single or multiple, found temporal to or at the macula. Most patients were administered steroids, with 69% receiving them systemically, 5% topically, and 8% locally with a triamcinolone injection. All patients reported symptomatic improvement at their final follow-up with resolution of the mass in 65% of patients and improved visual acuity in 76%.
conclusionPrimary testing including fundoscopy, fluorescein angiography, fundus autofluorescence, A/B-scan, and OCT are useful for diagnosis, differentiation from other choroidal lesions, and monitoring treatment response. Steroids are a mainstay of treatment for sarcoidosis and are effective at treating choroidal granulomas. Therefore, early recognition and diagnosis of choroidal granulomas is imperative as treatment can be curative and sight-sparing.
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.