ArticleCase reports in ophthalmological medicine2026
Peripapillary Hyperreflective Ovoid Mass-Like Structure as an Optic Disc Pseudo-Edema Case Report and Review.
Article in Case reports in ophthalmological medicine, 2026. 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.
- Peripapillary Hyperreflective Ovoid Mass-Like Structure as an Optic Disc Pseudo-Edema Case Report and Review.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2026Article
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
Background: The peripapillary hyperreflective ovoid mass-like structure (PHOMS) has been defined by the Optic Disc Drusen Studies (ODDS) Consortium as a distinct finding separate from the optic disc drusen (ODD). Given that PHOMS is neither a precursor nor subtype of ODD, its role as an independent risk factor for optic nerve diseases and its secondary consequences on nerve fibre function remain unclear. Case Presentation: We present the case of a 12-year-old child diagnosed with PHOMS. Multimodal ophthalmic imaging, including optical coherence tomography (OCT), revealed a peripapillary hyperreflective ovoid mass without calcification and elevated disc margins, but no signs of increased intracranial pressure or subretinal fluid, thereby distinguishing PHOMS from papilledema. Visual acuity was preserved, and no neurological abnormalities were detected. Conclusions: This case illustrates important clinical and imaging distinctions between PHOMS and papilledema, emphasising the need for dedicated examination of PHOMS across disease groups. Longitudinal studies involving larger cohorts are warranted to determine whether PHOMS can serve as a biomarker for the magnitude and severity of optic nerve damage.
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.