ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research2009
Late probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction and Refractive Amblyopia Risk Factors: Effect of Age at the Time of Probing.Beyoglu eye journal · 2022Article
- Success rates of dacryoendoscopy-guided probing for recalcitrant congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
- Insights in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report the results of late nasolacrimal duct probing in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO).
methodsThis retrospective study was performed on a consecutive series of patients with congenital NLDO who underwent late (after 15 months of age) nasolacrimal duct probing for the first time.
resultsOver a period of five years, 158 patients including 75 (47.4%) male and 83 (52.6%) female subjects with mean age of 3±4.2 years (range, 15 months to 37 years) underwent initial probing for NLDO. Nasolacrimal duct probing was performed unilaterally in 78% and bilaterally in 22% of the patients. Success rate was 75% overall, 72% in unilateral cases and 83% in bilateral instances. Success rate was not correlated with age at intervention.
conclusionNasolacrimal duct probing seems to be reasonably successful for treatment of congenital NLDO in patients older than 15 months who are seen for the first time. Silicone intubation or dacryocystorhinostomy should be reserved for refractory cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23198056PMC3498545W1551011458What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.