ArticleScientific reports2025
Factors affecting visual outcome in patients with toxic optic neuropathy caused by ethambutol.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Temporal evolution and factors influencing visual function and RNFL thickness in ethambutol-associated optic neuropathy.European journal of medical research · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to investigate prognostic factors for visual recovery in patients with ethambutol-induced toxic optic neuropathy (EON) by analyzing visual field (VF) tests, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness on optical coherence tomography (OCT), and other variables. We retrospectively reviewed 46 eyes of 23 patients with EON who had been followed up for more than six months. Patients were categorized into recovery (n = 12) and non-recovery (n = 11) groups based on visual recovery at six months after discontinuation of ethambutol. In the recovery group, initial best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and VF tests were better (p < 0.001), body weight (p = 0.04) was higher and the number of patient with diabetes (p = 0.007) was lower than in the non-recovery group. Baseline BCVA, VF tests, inferior and nasal RNFL thickness were correlated with visual outcomes. Univariate analysis showed that younger age (p = 0.024), higher body weight (p = 0.033), better initial BCVA (p < 0.001), better VF tests (p = 0.007), no hypertension (p = 0.044) and no diabetes (p = 0.009) were significant associated with a good visual outcomes. Multivariate analysis confirmed baseline BCVA as the only significant prognostic factor. Better BCVA at baseline are associated with favorable visual outcomes in EON patients. VF parameters, age, hypertension, diabetes, and body weight could also be considered possible predictors. Although RNFL thickness has significant correlation with visual outcomes, it does not appear to be a reliable factor to predict visual recovery.
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.