ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Diagnostic criteria for optic neuritis in the acute and subacute phase: clinical uses and limitations.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The supporting role of Visual Evoked Potentials for the diagnosis of Optic Neuritis within the 2022 ICON criteria.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA recent international consensus panel proposed diagnostic criteria for optic neuritis and a new classification. We aimed to investigate the clinical relevance of these diagnostic criteria and classification, in a cohort of patients hospitalized for a suspected diagnosis of optic neuritis.
methodsWe included all patients hospitalized between 2017 and 2022 in our tertiary center for (sub)acute loss of visual acuity suggestive of optic neuritis. Clinical and paraclinical criteria obtained within the first 3 months of symptoms were collected, as well as the final diagnosis which could be optic neuritis or non-optic neuritis. We constructed a contingency table comparing diagnoses based on physician experience to those based on the recently proposed criteria. The subtypes of optic neuritis based on the new classification were compared to subtypes based on the clinician experience.
resultsTwo hundred fifty-seven patients were included in this study. Prevalence of optic neuritis in our cohort was 88.3%. Sensitivity and specificity of a correct diagnosis using the new criteria were, respectively, 99.5% and 86.7%. The proposed diagnostic criteria overdiagnosed four patients with optic neuritis and missed the diagnosis in one patient. According to the recent classification, idiopathic optic neuritis and clinical isolated syndrome were reclassified mainly as single isolated optic neuritis.
conclusionIn our specific cohort of patients hospitalized for acute and subacute optic neuropathy highly suspect of optic neuritis, we found that recently proposed diagnostic criteria and classification of optic neuritis are relevant for our clinical practice. Our interpretation of clinical requirement for definite and possible optic neuritis diagnosis might explain our excellent sensitivity and our high percentage of definite optic neuritis, relative to previous publications. The moderate specificity (86.7%) underlines the importance to include all contextual data in consideration for the diagnosis. The simplification of subgroups is useful, but our study highlights the complexity to find the adequate subgroup for seronegative NMOSD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38954036What 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.