ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Factors associated with vision loss in idiopathic intracranial hypertension patients with severe papilledema.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a novel and graded colour saturation threshold test, the LSS-8.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Case Report: Intracranial hypertension occurring in association with subacute thyroiditis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension in Children and Adolescents with Obesity: A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Optic Nerve Sheath Fenestration for Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. A Subgroup-Focused Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.ASIDE internal medicine · 2025Article
- Epidemiological Patterns, Treatment Response, and Metabolic Correlations of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A United States-Based Study From 1990 to 2024.ASIDE internal medicine · 2025Article
- Visual prognosis in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: observations from a retrospective cohort in Germany.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
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/
objectivesOur aim was to compare factors associated with poor versus good visual outcomes in idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) patients with severe papilledema at initial presentation. SUBJECTS/
methodsRetrospective review of consecutive IIH patients (1/1/2013-6/10/2023) with severe papilledema (Frisén grade 4-5 and/or atrophy in at least one eye); Patients were divided into "poor visual outcome" (poor visual acuity and constricted visual field in at least one eye) and "good visual outcome" (good visual acuity and only mild visual field changes in both eyes) at >6 months for medically-treated patients and >3 months follow-up for surgically-treated patients.
resultsWe included 134 IIH patients with severe papilledema (70 had poor and 64 had good visual outcomes). No significant differences existed for age, gender, race, hypertension, haemoglobin, or cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure. The poor-outcome group had significantly greater BMI (mean 39.2 vs 35.1 kg/m
conclusionsAlthough patients with poor visual outcome did not seek medical care later than good outcome patients, they had delayed diagnosis/treatment because of prior outside ED visits and lack of prior eye-care provider evaluations, suggesting that early diagnosis and specialized management of papilledema is essential for patients with symptoms of intracranial hypertension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.