ArticleOphthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery
Compliance With Protective Lens Wear in Anophthalmic Patients.
Article in Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spectacle Adherence Among Four-Year-Old Children in the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study.American journal of ophthalmology · 2019Trial
- Protective eyewear in children with one eye vision loss: compliance and trends.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the frequency of protective lens wear by anophthalmic patients and identify factors that influence compliance.
methodsAn IRB approved descriptive retrospective chart review of patients undergoing surgery with the senior author (PLC) with an anophthalmic orbit and one remaining sighted eye. Results were tabulated and analyzed using age, indication for procedure, duration of visual symptoms, safety glasses wear, number of postoperative visits, and evidence of new trauma to the remaining eye. All patients underwent counseling on the importance of protective lens wear preoperatively and each subsequent visit.
resultsEtiologies for loss of the eye in the 132 study patients included trauma (33.3%), blind painful eye (33.3%), congenital disorders (14.4%), adult-onset malignancy (14.4%), and retinoblastoma (4.5%). At the final visit, protective lenses were worn in the following patterns: full-time (55.3%), frequently (11.4%), occasional (6%), and never (28.8%). The regular use of protective eyewear at last visit was more common in patients wearing glasses at presentation (79.7%), than in those who did not (32.9%; p ≤ 0.001). Increased number of office encounters correlated with more frequent use of protective eyewear (p ≤ 0.01). Patient age (p = 0.95), indication for surgery (p = 0.97), and duration of visual loss (p = 0.85) were not predictive of safety glasses wear. Three patients had evidence of subsequent ocular trauma to the remaining eye, with 2 having resultant decrease in acuity; none of these 3 patients wore safety glasses full-time.
conclusionsA significant number of anopthalmic patients were not wearing protective lenses at presentation. Overall compliance was poor; but repeated education on the importance of safety glasses appears to improve compliance. Educating referring providers and primary care physicians about the importance of early and repeated counseling is vital to increasing compliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.