ReviewNeuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press)2024
Characterisation and Visual Outcomes of Fulminant Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A Narrative Review.
Review in Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of Poor Visual Outcomes at Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Diagnosis Using a Supervised Machine Learning Algorithm.Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Visual Outcomes and Risk of Papilledema Recurrence in Fulminant Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension.Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society · 2025Article
- Paediatric IIH: Are There Differences in Visual Outcomes and Recurrence Rates?Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2025Article
- Managing idiopathic intracranial hypertension in the eye clinic.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Fulminant Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Should Be Redefined Without a Time Limited Definition: In reply to: Characterisation and visual outcomes of fulminant idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a narrative review.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fulminant idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a rapid vision-degrading presentation of IIH with limited published studies. This study composed a narrative review of fulminant IIH with the aim of better characterising fulminant IIH presentation and visual outcomes. SCOPUS and PubMed were searched for papers referencing IIH, benign intracranial hypertension, or pseudotumour cerebri. Abstracts were screened for rapid degradation in vision. All studies were required to meet both the modified Dandy and fulminant IIH criteria. Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Demographics, treatments, and visual outcome data were collected. Case studies made up 69% of the studies and 31% were case series. In total, 72 patients with fulminant IIH were reported, of which 23.6% were paediatric and 96% were female. Surgical intervention occurred in 85% of patients. Anaemia was present in 11% of patients and 85.7% of paediatric patients had a sixth cranial nerve palsy. In conclusion, we propose the following practice guidelines to assist in diagnosing and treating fulminant IIH patients: 1) patients who present with optic disc oedema require urgent visual field testing to evaluate for vision loss; 2) a paediatric patient presenting with a sixth cranial nerve palsy should have a comprehensive eye examination; 3) fulminant IIH can occur in patients with a normal body mass index; and 4) anaemia should be tested for in the setting of fulminant IIH. As little is known about the optimal treatment mechanisms for this presentation, multi-institutional and international collaborations will be a critical step for future research.
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.