[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 1980

Optic Neuritis and Its Differential Diagnosis

Arch Ophthalmol. 1980;98(4):773. doi:10.1001/archopht.1980.01020030767027

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Look up "optic neuritis" in any textbook of ophthalmology published in the last five years and you will have a clear, concise, two-page description of the disease. Why then do we need a 282-page book on optic neuritis? Read another general textbook and you will find another concise description, with some important details changed. Read a third book and you will find yet another short description with a third set of facts. Now try to use what you have learned!

It is hard to be concise about optic neuritis. The diagnosis is sometimes difficult to make, the clinical picture is strewn with exceptions (eg, permanent visual loss), and inexplicable symptoms (photopsias) are common. The literature on optic neuritis is muzzy. Some clinical reviews are retrospective, some prospective, and some introspective. Every series gives a different prognosis for the development of multiple sclerosis, and every author recommends a different evaluation.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview