ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Direct and Dural Carotid Cavernous Sinus Fistulas: Comparison of Clinical Characteristics.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spontaneous Resolution of a Bilateral Barrow Type D Indirect Carotid-Cavernous Fistula: A Rare Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical Risk Score for Prediction of Urgency in Carotid Cavernous Sinus Fistulas.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Carotid-Cavernous Fistulas: The Utility of Ocular Echography in Their Differentiation [Letter].Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Carotid-Cavernous Fistulas: The Utility of Ocular Echography in Their Differentiation [Response to Letter].Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
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
Purpose: To compare the clinical characteristics of patients with direct and dural carotid cavernous sinus fistulas (CCFs). Methods: The medical records of 60 patients diagnosed with CCFs were retrospectively reviewed. The collected data included demographic characteristics, clinical findings, and ocular manifestation. The clinical characteristics of the direct and the dural CCFs were compared on head-to-head basis. Logistic regression analysis was used to demonstrate the direction and magnitude of the difference and reported as odds ratio with its 95% confidence interval. Results: There were 28 patients (46.67%) with direct CCFs, and 32 patients (53.33%) with dural CCFs. Patients with direct CCF were mostly male (p=0.023), younger age (p<0.001), had history of trauma (p<0.001), and more visual impairment at presentation (p=0.025), when compared to those with dural CCFs. In addition, patients with direct CCF had significantly more chemosis (p=0.005), proptosis (p=0.042), bruit (p<0.001) and dilated retinal vessels (p=0.008) than those with dural CCF. Thirty patients (50%) had increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Mean IOP of the affected eyes was significantly higher than the unaffected eyes (p<0.0001). In patients with normal IOP, mean IOP of the affected eyes was also higher than the unaffected eyes (p=0.0027). Conclusion: Patients with direct CCF were younger age, associated with trauma, and more visual impairment at presentation. Chemosis, proptosis, bruit and dilated retinal vessels were detected more in the direct CCF than the dural CCF. Despite normal IOP, affected eyes had significantly higher IOP than the unaffected eyes. Information on these clinical characteristics may be helpful in discrimination of the direct type, which is more urgent for further investigation and treatment.
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.