Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23338232›Full record

ReviewInternational ophthalmology2013

Controversies in ocular trauma classification and management: review.

Rupesh Agrawal, Mehul Shah, Kamiar Mireskandari, Goh Kong Yong

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International ophthalmology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antibiotic prophylaxis for corneal abrasion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Antibiotic prophylaxis for corneal abrasion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The role of pars plana vitrectomy in eyes with no light perception after severe open globe injury and the determination of prognostic factors.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. La Tunisie medicale · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The application of clinical registries in ophthalmic trauma-the International Globe and Adnexal Trauma Epidemiology Study (IGATES).Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Role of Socioeconomic Status (SES) in Globe Injuries: A Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Rupesh AgrawalDepartment of Ophthalmology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore. rupesh_agrawal@ttsh.com.sg
Mehul Shah
Kamiar Mireskandari
Goh Kong Yong
Tan Tock Seng Hospital · SGHospital for Sick Children · CAVasan Eye Care Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ocular trauma is a topic of unresolved controversies and there are continuous controversial and debatable management strategies for open-globe injuries (OGIs). International classification of ocular trauma proposed almost 15 years ago needs to be reviewed and to be more robust in predicting the outcome in the setting of OGIs. Anterior segment trauma involves controversies related to patching for corneal abrasion, corneal laceration repair, and medical management of hyphema. Timing of cataract surgery and intraocular lens implantation in the setting of trauma is still debated worldwide. There are unresolved issues regarding the management of OGIs involving the posterior segment. Timing of vitrectomy has been and will continue to be debated by proponents of early versus delayed intervention. The use of prophylactic cryotherapy and scleral buckle is still practiced differently throughout the world. The role of intravitreal antibiotics in posterior segment trauma in the absence of infection is still debated. Similarly, the use of vitrectomy versus vitreous tap in the setting of traumatic endophthalmitis is not fully resolved. In optic neuropathy, the role of intravenous methylprednisolone versus conservative management is always debated and still there are no evidence-based guidelines about the beneficial role of pulse steroid therapy. The role of optic canal decompression in the setting of acute traumatic optic neuropathy is also not conclusive. Orbital and adnexal trauma has been shown to adversely affect the outcome of OGI patients but both lids and orbital injury are not taken as preoperative variables in international ocular trauma classification. The timing of intervention in blow-out fracture is still debated. The pediatric age group, owing to the high risk of amblyopia and intraocular inflammation as well as strong vitreoretinal adhesions, has to be managed by different principles. Although the risk of sympathetic ophthalmia is very rare, it is always one of the key debated issues while managing traumatized eyes with no light perception vision. Prospective, controlled clinical studies are not possible in the OGI setting and this article reviews pertinent data regarding these management issues and controversies, and provides recommendations for treatment based on the available published data and the authors' personal experience.

Indexed as

Eye InjuriesAnti-Bacterial AgentsCryotherapyHumansPrognosisSteroidsVitrectomyAnti-Bacterial AgentsSteroids

Identifiers

PMID23338232
OpenAlexW1993582653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.