ReviewCureus2025
Differentiating Visual Symptoms in Retinal Migraine and Migraine With Aura: A Systematic Review of Shared Features, Distinctions, and Clinical Implications.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Triggers, prodrome, aura, and headache interactions in migraine with typical aura: a prospective deep-phenotyping study.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Observational
- When headache meets visual disturbance: An evidence-based review of common and critical entities.Science progressReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to systematically review and compare the visual symptoms, temporal characteristics, associated features, and pathophysiological mechanisms of retinal migraine (RM) and migraine with aura (MA) to facilitate clinical differentiation. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched from January 1985 to July 2025 for studies on adult patients with RM or MA. A large language model assisted in extracting data on study design, visual symptoms, diagnostic criteria, and frequencies. Inclusion criteria focused on studies differentiating conditions, with preference given to case series of at least five patients and to systematic reviews or meta-analyses that encompassed at least 10 studies. Two-stage screening yielded 171 papers, with 65 unique studies analyzed qualitatively. RM is characterized by monocular (90%), negative symptoms (e.g., scotoma 84% and transient vision loss up to 100%), variable duration (less than 60 minutes in 89%, but prolongable), and vascular pathophysiology, with rare permanent loss. MA features bilateral/homonymous (75%), positive symptoms (e.g., scintillating scotoma 77% and zigzag 53%), stereotyped duration (five to 60 minutes in 79%), and cortical spreading depression, often with additional neurological symptoms. Overlaps include transient phenomena (less than one hour) and gradual spread. The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition (ICHD-3) criteria predominate, but debate persists for RM's reversibility requirement. MA evidence is robust from large cohorts, while RM data are limited and heterogeneous. Key differentiators include laterality, symptom type, and duration variability. Accurate history-taking emphasizing monocularity and exclusion of vascular mimics is crucial; RM may warrant aggressive prophylaxis to prevent infarction. Future research should standardize RM criteria and explore underreported acephalgic cases.
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.