ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Clinical and etiological profile of patients with bitemporal optic disc pallor visiting at a tertiary eye hospital.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBitemporal optic disc pallor may result from chiasmal compression as well as bilateral toxic, nutritional, hereditary, or inflammatory optic neuropathies. Data describing its clinical and etiological profile in Nepal are limited. This study was conducted with the aim to describe the clinical and etiological profile of patients with bitemporal optic disc pallor and to evaluate the relationship between clinical, visual-field, neuroimaging, and OCT findings.
methodsA hospital-based prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with clinically documented bitemporal optic disc pallor presenting to Biratnagar Eye Hospital, Nepal. The minimum calculated sample size was 49, and 50 participants were included in the final analysis. Demographic and clinical findings, Humphrey visual-field patterns, neuroimaging findings, optical coherence tomography-derived retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) and macular ganglion cell analysis (GCA) measurements, and relevant blood investigations were evaluated. Data were summarized using frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations.
resultsThe mean age of participants was 38.58 ± 15.20 years, and 58.0% were male. Diminution of vision was the predominant presenting complaint (88.0%). Central scotoma was the most common visual-field defect (48.0%), followed by cecocentral scotoma (26.0%) and bitemporal hemianopia (20.0%). Nutritional optic neuropathy was the most frequent etiology (26.0%), followed by toxic optic neuropathy (20.0%); Leber hereditary optic neuropathy and inflammatory optic neuropathy each accounted for 18.0%. Pituitary macroadenoma was present in 16.0% and Rathke cleft cyst in 2.0%. Bitemporal hemianopia was predominantly associated with sellar lesions. The combined pituitary macroadenoma/Rathke cleft cyst group had the lowest mean RNFL thickness (67.4 ± 10.7 μm). Temporal RNFL thinning was more prominent in toxic optic neuropathy and Leber hereditary optic neuropathy, with mean temporal RNFL values of 39.5 and 40.8 μm, respectively.
conclusionsBitemporal optic disc pallor demonstrated a diverse etiological spectrum. Sellar lesions were predominantly associated with bitemporal hemianopia and greater overall RNFL loss, whereas non-sellar optic neuropathies were more frequently associated with central or cecocentral scotomas and temporal RNFL thinning. Combined clinical examination, visual-field assessment, neuroimaging, and optical coherence tomography may assist in differentiating the underlying causes.
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.