ReviewInternational journal of retina and vitreous2026
Visual electrophysiology in carotid endarterectomy: a systematic review.
Review in International journal of retina and vitreous, 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
backgroundTo systematically evaluate changes in ocular electrophysiological function following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and to determine whether electroretinography (ERG) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) can detect postoperative functional recovery of the retina and visual pathways.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 2025. Observational studies assessing electrophysiological outcomes (ERG, VEP, multifocal recordings, or electrooculography [EOG]) before and after CEA in adults with carotid stenosis were included. Study quality was evaluated using the NHLBI Study Quality Assessment Tools. Due to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, a quantitative synthesis was not performed.
resultsFour prospective observational studies were included, involving 95 patients with predominantly severe carotid stenosis (≥ 70%), with one cohort applying a ≥ 60% threshold. Electrophysiological findings were heterogeneous: VEP parameters generally showed no consistent postoperative improvement, whereas ERG demonstrated significant enhancement of oscillatory potentials and a-/b-waves amplitudes in 3 of the 4 included studies. Visual field indices improved in several cohorts, while structural parameters, particularly retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, remained stable. Changes in intraocular pressure were inconsistently reported. Overall methodological quality indicated a moderate-to-high risk of bias, primarily due to small sample sizes, lack of adjustment for confounders, and variability in electrophysiological protocols.
conclusionThe available evidence, while preliminary and exploratory, suggests a possible association between CEA and postoperative changes in electrophysiological parameters, most notably ERG-derived measures. These findings should be interpreted with considerable caution given the small number of studies, limited sample sizes, and substantial methodological heterogeneity. Whether ocular electrophysiology holds clinical utility in the perioperative assessment of carotid disease remains to be established by larger, adequately powered, and standardized prospective studies.
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.