Cited by 199Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesGlaucoma and retinal disordersDrug-Induced Ocular Toxicity

Macular volume determined by optical coherence tomography as a measure of neuronal loss in multiple sclerosis

Open access
Burkholder, Bryn M., Osborne, Benjamin, Loguidice, Michael J., Bisker, Esther, Frohman, Teresa C., Conger, Amy, Ratchford, John N., Warner, Christina +8 more·2009·Archives of Neurology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inner (area adjacent to the fovea) and outer regions of the macula differ with respect to relative thicknesses of the ganglion cell layer (neurons) vs retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL; axons). OBJECTIVE: To determine how inner vs outer macular volumes relate to peripapillary RNFL thickness and visual function in multiple sclerosis (MS) and to examine how these patterns differ among eyes with vs without a history of acute optic neuritis (ON). DESIGN: Study using cross-sectional optical coherence tomography. SETTING: Three academic tertiary care MS centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with MS, diagnosed by standard criteria, and disease-free control participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Optical coherence tomography was used to measure macular volumes and RNFL thickness. Visual function was assessed using low-contrast letter acuity and high-contrast visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts). RESULTS: Among eyes of patients with MS (n = 1058 eyes of 530 patients), reduced macular volumes were associated with peripapillary RNFL thinning; 10-microm differences in RNFL thickness (9.6% of thickness in control participants without disease) corresponded to 0.20-mm(3) reductions in total macular volume (2.9% of volume in control participants without disease, P < .001). This relation was similar for eyes of MS patients with and without a history of ON. Although peripapillary RNFL thinning was more strongly associated with decrements in outer compared with inner macular volumes, correlations with inner macular volume were significant (r = 0.58, P < .001) and of slightly greater magnitude for eyes of MS patients with a history of ON vs eyes of MS patients without a history of ON (r = 0.61 vs r = 0.50). Lower (worse) visual function scores were associated with reduced total, inner, and outer macular volumes. However, accounting for peripapillary RNFL thickness, the relation between vision and inner macular volume remained significant and unchanged in magnitude, suggesting that this region contains retinal structures separate from RNFL axons that are important to vision. CONCLUSIONS: Analogous to studies of gray matter in MS, these data provide evidence that reductions of volume in the macula (approximately 34% neuronal cells by average thickness) accompany RNFL axonal loss. Peripapillary RNFL thinning and inner macular volume loss are less strongly linked in eyes of MS patients without a history of ON than in eyes of MS patients with a history of ON, suggesting alternative mechanisms for neuronal cell loss. Longitudinal studies with segmentation of retinal layers will further explore the relation and timing of ganglion cell degeneration and RNFL thinning in MS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneurol.2009.230

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burkholder, B. M., Osborne, B., Loguidice, M. J., Bisker, E., Frohman, T. C., Conger, A., Ratchford, J. N., Warner, C., Markowitz, C. E., Jacobs, D. A., Galetta, S. L., Cutter, G. R., Maguire, M. G., Calabresi, P. A., Balcer, L. J., & Frohman, E. M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Georgetown University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
2009-11-01
Volume
66
Issue
11
Pages
1366-72
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053495368
Cited by
199
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 32
FWCI
14.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Multiple Sclerosis Society
  • National Eye Institute (K24 EY 014136)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Drug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, macular volume, retinal nerve fiber layer thinning, optic neuritis, neuronal loss, ganglion cell layer, visual function, macular atrophy
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Macula Lutea, Male, Multiple Sclerosis, Neurons, Optic Neuritis, Tomography, Optical Coherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review