ArticlePloS one2026
Prognostic factors associated with visual field recovery in non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.
Article in PloS one, 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
This study aimed to identify baseline prognostic factors associated with visual field (VF) recovery in patients with non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). This retrospective study included 38 patients (41 eyes) diagnosed with NAION. VF recovery was defined as an improvement of ≥3 dB in mean deviation (MD) at 3 months. Baseline demographic characteristics, systemic vascular risk factors, visual function tests, and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) were analyzed. Eleven eyes (26.8%) were classified as the recovery group. Compared with the non-recovery group, the recovery group had significantly better baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (P = 0.034) and lower glycated hemoglobin levels (P = 0.033). Baseline VF impairment was significantly less severe in the recovery group, with higher MD (P = 0.049) and visual field index (VFI) values (P = 0.014). No significant association was observed between topical eye drop treatment, including brimonidine and netarsudil, and visual field recovery (p = 0.723). Baseline BCVA strongly correlated with BCVA at 1, 3, and 6 months (all P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that better baseline MD (P = 0.041) and higher VFI (P = 0.036) were independently associated with VF recovery. However, RNFL thickness measured at initial visit by OCT did not reliably predict recovery. These findings highlight that baseline functional status remain as the most important predictor of visual field recovery in NAION.
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.