ArticlePloS one2016
Long-Term Changes in Refractive Error and Clinical Evaluation in Partially Accommodative Esotropia after Surgery.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical outcomes of unilateral medial rectus recession for partially accommodative esotropia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Accommodative esotropia: the state of the art.International ophthalmology · 2019Review
- Article
- Long-term development of refractive error in refractive, nonrefractive and partially accommodative esotropia.PloS one · 2018Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigate the changes in refractive error and clinical evaluation in partially accommodative esotropia(PAET) after surgery. A total of 68 patients PAET who received at least 2 years of follow-up after surgery were enrolled in this study. We performed a retrospective study in patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral medial rectus recession for a non-accommodative component of PAET between January 2005 and March 2013. Patients were divided into groups according to the presence of dominancy (dominant, non-dominant, alternative eye), and presence of amblyopia (amblyopic, fellow, normal eye). Changes and changing pattern in SE refractive error were analyzed in all patients and compared between groups. Patients were divided into two groups, those weaned off of hyperopic glasses and those who continued using them, then factors that significantly influenced the continued use of glasses were analyzed. The changes and changing pattern in SE refractive error according to time after operation and presence of amblyopia or dominancy. The mean length of follow-up was 4.89±1.74 years after surgery and the mean change in SE refractive error rate per year was -0.284±0.411 diopters (D). The pattern of changes in the mean SE refractive error for those with dominant, non-dominant, and alternative eyes was not significantly different (p = 0.292). The pattern of changes in the mean SE refractive error for those with amblyopic, fellow, and normal eyes was significantly different (p = 0.0002). Patients were successfully weaned off of hyperopic glasses at an average age of 9.41±2.74 years. The average SE refractive error in the group weaned off of hyperopic glasses was significantly lower than that in the group maintained on hyperopic glasses (p = 0.0002). The change of SE refractive error in amblyopic eyes decreased less than that in fellow or normal eyes, which may be correlated with the presence of amblyopia. Patients with a smaller esodeviated angle without hyperopic correction, a lower degree of hyperopia, and who were older at the time of disease onset were discontinued from hyperopic glasses sooner after surgery.
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.