ArticleScientific reports2026
Neuroimaging outcomes in suspected papilledema.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Papilledema due to elevated intracranial pressure may indicate life-threatening conditions such as intracranial mass lesions or cerebral sino-venous thrombosis. This bicentric retrospective cohort study evaluated neuroimaging outcomes and clinical predictors in adults presenting with suspected papilledema to emergency departments between 2009 and 2022. Diagnostic outcomes were categorized as confirmed papilledema (due to idiopathic intracranial hypertension, space-occupying lesions, hydrocephalus or secondary intracranial causes) or papilledema ruled out. Clinical features, visual acuity, and frequency of focal neurological deficits were compared between groups. Diagnostic yield and number needed to scan (NNS) for CT and MRI were calculated, and univariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of secondary intracranial causes. Among 225 patients (mean age 43.0 ± 16.8 years; 57% female), papilledema was confirmed in 124 (55%), including 44 (35.5%) with secondary intracranial causes. Papilledema was excluded in 73 patients (32.4%). Primary CT and MRI identified secondary pathology in 13.3% (NNS 7.5) and 16.7% (NNS 6) of patients, respectively. Diplopia, nausea/vomiting, and focal neurological deficits were associated with secondary causes but were not consistently present. Secondary intracranial pathology is common in suspected papilledema. Given the limited discriminatory value of clinical features, timely neuroimaging should be performed in the diagnostic evaluation.
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.