Table 2.
Author and Year | Study Design | Study Population | Intervention | Comparator | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dağdelen et al., 2022 [12] | Case-control study | 47 adults with IIH | Sonographic ONSD | 50 healthy controls | Mean sonographic ONSD wider in cases (6.4 mm vs. 4.9 mm) |
Ideal cut point of 5.7 mm yielding: Sensitivity 100% Specificity 98% | |||||
Kishk et al., 2018 [13] | Case-control study | 99 females with IIH (90 definite IIH, 9 probable IIH) | Sonographic ONSD | 35 age-matched healthy controls | Mean sonographic ONSD wider in cases (6.57 mm vs. 5.50 mm) |
Ideal cut point of 6.05 mm yielding: Sensitivity 73% Specificity 91% | |||||
del Saz-Saucedo et al., 2016 [14] | Prospective observational | 30 patients with suspected IIH | Sonographic ONSD | Lumbar puncture with CSF opening pressure of ≥25 cmH2O | Mean sonographic ONSD wider in IIH patients (6.8 mm vs. 5.7 mm) |
Idea cut point of 6.3 mm yielding: Sensitivity 95% Specificity 91% +LR 10.4 −LR 0.06 | |||||
Ebraheim et al., 2018 [15] | Case-control study | 24 adults with IIH (20 definite IIH, 4 probable IIH). All cases received acetazolamide treatment. | Sonographic ONSD | 30 controls | Mean sonographic ONSD higher in IIH patients (6.7 mm vs. 5.5 mm) |
ONSD was not correlated with CSF opening pressure | |||||
1 week post-LP (10–15 mL withdrawn), mean ONSD not significantly different from baseline (6.6 mm vs. 6.7 mm) | |||||
4 weeks post-LP and after treatment with acetazolamide, mean ONSD decreased from baseline (6.4 mm vs. 6.8 mm) | |||||
Ideal cut point of 6.2 mm yielding: Sensitivity 88% Specificity 100% | |||||
Jeub et al., 2020 [16] | Case-control study | 19 adults with IIH (15 definite IIH, 4 probable IIH) | Sonographic ONSD | 20 healthy controls | Mean sonographic ONSD higher in IIH patients (values not provided) |
24 h after LP (30 mL withdrawn), mean ONSD decreased (mean reduction right eye 0.4 mm, left eye 0.5 mm) | |||||
Ideal cut point of 5.8 mm yielding: Sensitivity 81% Specificity 80% |