ArticleEuropean journal of ophthalmology2025
Differentiation of bacterial orbital cellulitis and diffuse non-specific orbital inflammation on magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in European journal of ophthalmology, 2025. 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.
- Novel advances in juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis.Arthritis research & therapy · 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
purposeTo examine the radiological differences between bacterial orbital cellulitis (OC) and diffuse non-specific orbital inflammation (DNSOI) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsRetrospective study of patients with OC and DNSOI with an MRI orbital scan. Localised orbital inflammation (e.g., idiopathic dacryoadenitis and myositis), quiescent orbital inflammation and pre-septal cellulitis were excluded.
resultsThirty-two patients presenting between 2008 and 2023, including twenty-one OC patients (mean age: 42.5 ± 24.9 years old, male: 6), and eleven DNSOI patients (mean age: 52.3 ± 17.8 years old, male: 16). Both OC and DNSOI demonstrate orbital fat contrast-enhancement. However, whilst OC demonstrated a hyperintense T2 signal (P < 0.001), variable signal was observed in DNSOI, with a hypointense T2 signal more suggestive of DNSOI (P = 0.012). When the lacrimal glands were involved, indistinct margins were more likely in OC (P < 0.001), whilst gross enlargement and contrast-enhancement was observed in DNSOI (P = 0.032 and 0.017, respectively). Peripheral contrast-enhancement of the extraocular muscle (EOM) (P = 0.002) was more common in OC, whilst DNSOI demonstrated variable contrast-enhancement throughout the affected EOM (P < 0.001). The presence of contralateral abnormalities, such as lacrimal gland enlargement and EOM involvement, are more suggestive of DNSOI.
conclusionSeveral MRI features, beyond overt sinogenic disease, may help to differentiate OC from DNSOI, including the orbital fat signal intensity, EOM and/or lacrimal gland involvement, and contralateral orbital abnormalities. However, these features may not be specific, and thus highlights the ongoing radiological dilemma clinicians are faced when tasked with differentiating between infectious and non-infectious orbital inflammatory disease.
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.