ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Evaluation of the 2022 international consensus criteria for optic neuritis: the role of clinical features and visual evoked potentials.
Article in Journal of neurology, 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimOptic neuritis (ON) diagnosis is challenging due to variable clinical presentations and the limited prospective validation of current criteria. This study evaluates the 2022 international consensus criteria for optic neuritis (ICON) criteria, and the impact of adding visual evoked potentials (VEPs) and new clinical definitions to improve diagnostic accuracy.
methodsWe introduced modifications to the ICON 2022 criteria, including a less strict clinical category allowing ON diagnosis with incomplete clinical features and the incorporation of VEPs as an additional paraclinical test. We then prospectively studied 46 patients with a first episode of unilateral subacute ON. Alongside standard clinical, MRI, OCT, and laboratory assessments, diagnostic classifications were compared between the original and modified criteria.
resultsUsing the original ICON 2022 criteria, 20 patients (43.5%) were classified as definite ON. This number increased to 32 patients (69.6%; p < 0.001) when applying the modified clinical criteria together with two abnormal paraclinical tests (MRI, OCT, or laboratory findings). When VEPs were incorporated alongside the less stringent clinical criteria, the number of definite ON cases further increased to 39 (84.8% vs. 43.5%; p < 0.001).
conclusionThe inclusion of VEPs, together with the adoption of less stringent clinical criteria, significantly increased the proportion of patients classified as having definite ON compared with the 2022 ICON criteria. This was particularly evident in patients with incomplete clinical presentations but typical paraclinical features, thereby supporting revisions aimed at broader clinical applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42696026What 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.