Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 1999
Multicenter clinical trial for evaluating methylprednisolone pulse treatment of idiopathic optic neuritis in Japan. Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial Multicenter Cooperative Research Group (ONMRG).
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wakakura M, Mashimo K, Oono S, Matsui Y, Tabuchi A, Kani K, Shikishima K, Kawai K, Nakao Y, Tazawa Y, Kiyosawa M, Abe H, Ohba N, Yago K, Maeda S, Sugita M, Ishikawa S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in 1991 to compare an intravenous megadose of methylprednisolone with a control drug (mecobalamin) for treating acute idiopathic optic neuritis.
CASES: Sixty-six cases from 22 clinical centers throughout Japan were examined to evaluate the treatment on visual function parameters, such as visual acuity, visual field, color vision, contrast sensitivity, and critical flicker frequency.
OBSERVATIONS: The methylprednisolone pulse treatment group showed faster recovery of visual function, particularly the visual acuity at 1 week (P<.05), Humphrey field analyzer mean deviation at 3 weeks (P<.05), and color vision at 1 week (P<.05). Recovery of contrast sensitivity at several different spatial frequencies was significant in the pulse treatment group at 1 (P<.01), 2 (P<.05), and 4 weeks (P<.05) after the start of treatment. Visual function test results at 12 weeks and 1 year were essentially the same in the two treatment groups. Side effects appeared more frequently in the pulse treatment group than in the control (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Pulse treatment does not appear effective for idiopathic optic neuritis even though visual function in the pulse treatment group of this trial recovered more quickly during the initial phase compared to the controls. More effective and specific treatment should be established for optic neuritis.
CASES: Sixty-six cases from 22 clinical centers throughout Japan were examined to evaluate the treatment on visual function parameters, such as visual acuity, visual field, color vision, contrast sensitivity, and critical flicker frequency.
OBSERVATIONS: The methylprednisolone pulse treatment group showed faster recovery of visual function, particularly the visual acuity at 1 week (P<.05), Humphrey field analyzer mean deviation at 3 weeks (P<.05), and color vision at 1 week (P<.05). Recovery of contrast sensitivity at several different spatial frequencies was significant in the pulse treatment group at 1 (P<.01), 2 (P<.05), and 4 weeks (P<.05) after the start of treatment. Visual function test results at 12 weeks and 1 year were essentially the same in the two treatment groups. Side effects appeared more frequently in the pulse treatment group than in the control (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Pulse treatment does not appear effective for idiopathic optic neuritis even though visual function in the pulse treatment group of this trial recovered more quickly during the initial phase compared to the controls. More effective and specific treatment should be established for optic neuritis.