ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2017
Patient adherence to the face-down positioning after macular hole surgery.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Position Adherence in Patients Underwent Pars Plana Vitrectomy with Silicone Oil Tamponade.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Internal limiting membrane flap with viscoelastic device for lamellar hole surgery with no postoperative positioning.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Factors influencing compliance in RRD patients with the face-down position via grounded theory approach.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Adherence to face-down and non-supine positioning after macular hole surgery.BMC ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Adherence to the face-down positioning after vitrectomy and gas tamponade: a time series analysis.BMC research notes · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine adherence to face-down positioning (FDP) among patients who underwent vitrectomy and gas tamponade for macular hole (MH) repair.
methodA total of 69 patients (37 females and 32 males) who underwent primary vitrectomy for MH repair were studied. Nurses recorded whether the patient complied with FDP each time they examined the patient. FDP score was obtained from the nursing records; patients were given a score of 1 if they complied with the FDP and 0 if they did not. The score was recorded four times per day for the first 3 postoperative days. A perfect FDP score was 12.
resultsThe mean ± standard deviation of the FDP scores was 10.6±1.8 (range: 4-12). Overall, 32 (46.4%) patients scored a perfect 12, and 7 (10.1%) patients scored <8. Failure of the MH closure was observed in only one patient (1.4%), who showed the poorest adherence to FDP (score =4). Consequently, the closure rate in patients with FDP score <7 (2/3, 66.7%) was significantly lower than in patients with an FDP score ≥7 (66/66, 100%) (
conclusionWhile adherence to FDP after MH surgery was better than that observed after vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachments in our previous study, the percentage of patients with FDP scores <8 did not differ. Statistically, the poor adherence to FDP can negatively impact the effectiveness of the surgery for MH repair.
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.