SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2025
Exploring the efficacy and safety of neuroprotective agents in optic neuritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review aims to systematically review the available evidence on neuroprotective agents for optic neuritis, evaluating their effectiveness and safety.
methodsThis systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. To collect the studies, we searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE in May 2023. A pre-established protocol of the systemic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, ID Number: (CRD42023448479).
resultsRegarding the global loss of RNFL, a statistical significance was observed in favor of erythropoietin compared to placebo (MD = - 5.40, 95%CI, - 7.27-- 3.53). The overall difference in VEP latency recovery was insignificant (MD = - 0.63, 95%CI, - 5.95-4.69). The distinctness in visual acuity measured in logMAR in the memantine group was significant (MD = - 0.25, 95%CI, - 0.33-- 0.16). Two of the included studies had no major adverse events, however, the likelihood of major adverse events was significant overall in the other studies (RR = 2.28, 95%CI, 1.16 to 4.47). The erythropoietin group had 12 cases of major adverse events with a RR = 2.35.
conclusionEvaluating neuroprotective agents for ON produced mixed findings. Although erythropoietin was effective in reducing the thinning of RNFL, it did not lead to improved visual acuity results. On the other hand, our analysis found that memantine significantly improved VA compared to placebo. Notably, the experimental groups had more frequent adverse events, particularly with erythropoietin. Thus, caution is advised when contemplating the use of these agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39969696What 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.