ArticleMiddle East African journal of ophthalmology
Radiopathological Correlation in Orbital Lesions.
Article in Middle East African journal of ophthalmology. 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.
- Ocular adnexal lymphomas: A comprehensive review with emphasis on histopathologic and magnetic resonance imaging appearance.Histology and histopathology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective is to analyze the radiological diagnosis of orbital lesions and their correlation with the final histopathological findings. We compared the initial reports by extramural radiologists and an in-house radiologist specialized in orbital imaging to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy in the interpretation of orbital imaging.
methodsThis was a retrospective chart review of forty patients referred to a Tertiary Eye Care Center in South India over a period of 7 years. These patients already had their imaging done elsewhere. The imaging was re-evaluated by an in-house radiologist. The radiological findings were correlated with the histopathological diagnosis. The diagnostic accuracy between the two radiologists was compared. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value in differentiating malignant from benign lesions were calculated in both groups. The sensitivity and PPV of the radiological diagnosis for neoplastic and inflammatory lesions in both groups were analyzed.
resultsThe accuracy in differentiating malignant from benign and inflammatory lesions by our in-house radiologist and extramural radiologists was 95% (κ = 0.9 [0.764, 0.997]) and 50% (κ = 0.036 [-0.160, 0.232]), respectively. The sensitivity and PPV of the radiological diagnosis by our in-house radiologist were 93.31% and 100% for benign lesions and 95.24% and 95.24% for malignant lesions. On the contrary, reports from the extramural radiologists showed a sensitivity and PPV of 76.92% and 66.67% for benign lesions and 14.28% and 60% for malignant lesions.
conclusionA high radiological diagnostic accuracy is possible when analyzed by radiologists experienced in orbital imaging.
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.