Evidence Hub

Development of a predictive model for visual outcomes and risk factors of bilateral involvement for non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) in Chinese patients

Xu X, Sun M, Cao S, Pan C, Wang Y, Chen B, Lee AG, Jonas J et al.

Eye and vision (London, England), 2026

895 participants

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to explore the risk factors associated with bilateral involvement and to develop a predictive model for visual prognosis in Chinese patients with non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).

Methods: In this retrospective database-related meta-analysis, we retrospectively identified patients with NAION from the Chinese Neuro-Ophthalmic Diseases project database between September 2020 and December 2024. The clinical characteristics of the patients were summarized. Logistic and stepwise regression analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with bilateral involvement. Patients were randomly divided into training (75%) and validation (25%) cohorts. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and logistic regression analyses were used to develop a model for predicting factors associated with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≤ 0.3 (decimal).

Results: The study included 895 patients (560 [62.57%] males, 1,128 eyes; mean age: 55.6 ± 10.4 years). Bilateral NAION was present in 226 (25.3%) patients. At the follow-up examination, 522 patients (730 eyes) had a BCVA ≤ 0.3 in 369 (50.6%) eyes. Bilateral NAION involvement was associated with hyperlipidemia (t = 2.02, P = 0.04), hematologic disorders (t = 2.31, P = 0.02), and smoking (t = 4.79, P < 0.01). Risk factors for a BCVA ≤ 0.3 at follow-up were a lower BCVA at onset (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.82, P < 0.01), diabetes mellitus…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 895 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free