Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40263597›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2025

The varieties of junctional scotoma: 17 cases, a review, and a taxonomy.

Jason J S Barton, Gülcenur Özturan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jason J S BartonDepartments of Medicine (Neurology), Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. jasonbarton@shaw.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8264-3795
Gülcenur ÖzturanDepartments of Medicine (Neurology), Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1360-6020

Funding

Canada Research Chairs (Chaires de recherche du Canada) 950-232752
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hemi-decussation at the optic chiasm creates the potential for crossed and uncrossed fibers to be affected in isolation or in various combinations of nerve, chiasm and tract, with patterns that reflect the retinotopic arrangement of axons. We present seventeen cases that illustrate the field defects that can result and review the literature to create a taxonomy of junctional visual field defects. The complete junction defect is blindness in one eye and loss of the entire temporal field of the other. The classic junctional scotoma combines optic neuropathy in one eye with upper temporal hemifield loss in the other, and is often a sign of ventral compression. The less frequent atypical junctional scotoma involves the lower temporal hemifield and has a higher frequency of dorsal compression or non-compressive pathology. There are the monocular defects in the temporal ('junctional scotoma of Traquair') or nasal hemifield, the latter of which is rarely if ever due to a pituitary adenoma. Highly asymmetric bitemporal defects with or without a central scotoma and the paradoxical junctional scotoma occur by extension of the lesion causing the junctional scotoma of Traquair. The posterior junction defect results from combined damage to the optic chiasm and optic tract. Recognizing these various patterns is important clinically as junctional defects have the same localizing significance as bitemporal defects and are being encountered more often. In addition the probability of certain types of pathology varies with the type of junctional defect.

Indexed as

Optic Nerve DiseasesScotomaAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOptic ChiasmVisual Fields

Identifiers

PMID40263597
PMCPMC12130498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.