ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology case reports2025
Article in American journal of ophthalmology case reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To report a pediatric case of choroidal osteoma documented from its earliest detectable stage, characterize its growth pattern, and evaluate the impact of photodynamic therapy (PDT) on tumor progression. Observations: A 4-year-old female underwent cataract surgery in the right eye and was consequently followed regularly. At age 8.8 years old (4 years of follow-up), a subtle, amelanotic choroidal juxtapapillary lesion was detected in the left eye on fundus examination. A retrospective review of fundus photographs prior to this examination revealed no readily visible lesion at age 6.7 years. Subtle changes on fundus photography in intermediate timepoints were apparent only on close inspection. Multimodal imaging confirmed the diagnosis of choroidal osteoma. The lesion's effective basal diameter growth rate before PDT was 1.94 mm/year, faster than reported in pediatric cases. After PDT, the growth rate was 1.78 mm/year, which was not statistically different (p = 0.558). Over a five-year follow-up period, the patient maintained 20/20 visual acuity in the affected eye despite subfoveal involvement of the tumor. Conclusions and importance: This case represents a rare instance of photographic documentation of choroidal osteoma during its earliest identifiable stages, providing unique insight into this rare tumor's natural history and progression. While PDT was performed, it neither halted the tumor's progression completely nor prevented it from extending sub-foveally. These findings underscore the importance of early detection, longitudinal imaging, and continued exploration of management strategies for pediatric choroidal osteomas.
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.