ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinicoradiologic differences between orbital schwannoma and cavernous venous malformation: a retrospective comparative case series.
Article in Scientific 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the clinical and radiological characteristics, and surgical outcomes of orbital schwannoma and cavernous venous malformation (CVM). We retrospectively compared 13 and 26 patients with biopsy-proven orbital schwannoma and CVM, respectively, analyzing clinical features, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) features (including dynamic contrast enhancement [DCE] imaging, apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] and CT attenuation), surgery type, and outcomes. In both the schwannoma (mean age, 45.0 ± 16.7 years; 53.8% females) and CVM (mean age, 50.2 ± 8.6 years; 61.5% females) groups, gradual proptosis was the most common symptom (53.8% and 46.2%; mean measurements of 3.0 ± 1.97 mm and 2.5 ± 1.64 mm, respectively. Both groups had a common intraconal location (61.5 and 53.8%; mean sizes of 21.0 ± 7 mm and 20 ± 5 mm, respectively). On MRI, schwannomas were significantly more heterogeneous than CVM (p = 0.044). Tail sign and target sign were seen in 46.2% of schwannomas (p < 0.001), and linear T2 hypointensity was present in 57.7% of CVM (p = 0.008). DCE-MRI revealed diffuse early enhancement for schwannomas and nodular early enhancement for CVMs (p < 0.001). Schwannomas displayed higher ADC value (1.64 ± 0.56 × 10
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.