Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Visual Morbidity in Giant Cell Arteritis

Open access
Liu, Grant T., Glaser, Joel S., Schatz, Norman J., Smith, J. Lawton·1994·Ophthalmology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To characterize visual morbidity in giant cell arteritis and to assess prognosis with respect to treatment. METHODS: Record review of 185 patients with coded diagnosis of giant cell (cranial) arteritis examined at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute from January 1, 1980, to January 31, 1993. RESULTS: Forty-five patients with biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis had visual symptoms, and 41 individuals (63 eyes) lost vision. The visual loss was unilateral in 19 patients (46%), sequential in 15 (37%), and simultaneous in 7 (17%). Anterior ischemic optic neuropathy developed in 88% of eyes, visual acuity was 20/200 or worse in 70%, 21% had no light perception, and the majority of field defects in testable eyes, aside from central scotomas associated with loss, showed altitudinal or arcuate patterns. Six patients lost vision during corticosteroid therapy for systemic symptoms of giant cell arteritis, whereas in 39 patients visual symptoms prompted steroid treatment. For visual symptoms, 25 patients received intravenous methylprednisolone, whereas 20 received oral prednisone alone. In the 41 patients with visual loss, vision was unchanged in 20 (49%), it worsened in 7 (17%), and it improved in 14 (34%). Subsequent fellow eye involvement was observed only with oral therapy, and a greater percentage of patients (9/23 [39%] versus 5/18 [28%]) improved after intravenous treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' series, patients with visual loss due to giant cell arteritis had a 34% chance for some improvement in visual function after corticosteroid treatment. Intravenous therapy may diminish the likelihood of fellow eye involvement and was associated with a slightly better prognosis for visual improvement.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31102-x

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 259

Metadata

Authors
Liu, G. T., Glaser, J. S., Schatz, N. J., & Smith, J. L.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-11
Volume
101
Issue
11
Pages
1779-1785
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1535036505
Cited by
259
References
13
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Visual Morbidity in Giant Cell Arteritis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31102-x
The paper
Liu, G. T., Glaser, J. S., Schatz, N. J., & Smith, J. L. (1994). Visual Morbidity in Giant Cell Arteritis. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31102-x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.