ArticleThe Neurohospitalist2024
Clinical Differences between Radiographic and Physical Horizontal Gaze Deviation: Utility of Using the Two in Patients with Ischemic Stroke.
Article in The Neurohospitalist, 2024. 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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Radiographic horizontal gaze deviation (RHGD) has been identified as a useful finding on computed tomography (CT) that indicates the affected side in supratentorial ischemic stroke; however, it remains unclear whether RHGD is essentially the same phenomenon as physical horizontal gaze deviation (PHGD). To resolve the issue, this study was conducted. Methods: Retrospective analyses were performed for 671 patients with ischemic stroke and 142 controls who were hospitalized and underwent head CT. First, clinical findings were examined to find differences between RHGD-positive and RHGD-negative patients. Second, patients were classified by their stroke mechanisms and/or affected vascular territories. For each subgroup, RHGD was compared with PHGD in frequency. Third, the proportions for patients divided by positivity for PHGD and RHGD were calculated in the subgroups. Results: Patients with RHGD had PHGD more often than those without. In all stroke subgroups, RHGD was more frequent than PHGD. The frequency difference was prominent in small-artery occlusion (SAO) and posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) stroke. In SAO of the basilar artery pontine perforator, RHGD was positive in 25% and largely contralesionally-directed. In PICA stroke, lesions in the vestibulocerebellum were associated with contralesional RHGD. Moreover, lesions in the lateral medulla also caused RHGD, which was mainly directed to the ipsilesional side. PHGD-positive stroke without RHGD was infrequent, whereas RHGD-positive stroke without PHGD was commonly observed (PICA stroke, 45.9%; other subgroups, 21.1%-27.5%). Conclusions: RHGD had different characteristics from PHGD; therefore, assessments of both PHGD and RHGD may lead to more accurate diagnoses.
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.