ArticleElectronic physician2017
Surgical outcome of conjunctival rotational autograft-mitomycin C (MMC) versus free conjunctival autograft-MMC for pterygium removal: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Electronic physician, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cosmetic outcome of femtosecond laser-assisted pterygium surgery.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2021Article
- How to minimize pterygium recurrence rates: clinical perspectives.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018Review
- Argon laser-assisted pterygium surgery.Oman journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPterygium is a common degenerative eye disease. Despite various surgical methods to treat pterygium, recurrence is the main complication. The main issue is finding a surgical method with the lowest recurrence.
objectiveto compare the complications, recurrence rate and the cosmetic effects of two surgical techniques, namely conjunctival rotation autograft (CRA) and conjunctival autograft (CA), in treating pterygium.
methodsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted at Khalili Hospital in Shiraz, Iran, from January to August 2015. Forty-five eyes from 45 patients were studied. The patients were randomly divided into two groups using the blocking method. The patients of one group were operated on by the CRA technique, while the other group was operated on by the CA method. The patients were checked for the recurrence of pterygium, and other complications at the end of the first, third, and sixth month. Finally, the data were analyzed using SPSS version 21.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 42.5 years. The recurrence of pterygium was not observed in any of the patients 6 months after the surgery. Following 6 months after the operation, graft retraction occurred during the first week for one patient (4.5%) in the CA group, and five patients (21.7%) in the CRA group. The prevalence rate of graft injection among the patients of the CA and CRA groups 6 months after the operation was 9.1% and 65.2%, respectively. There was a significant correlation between injection intensity and the dissatisfaction of the patients with the operation's outcome (p=0.017).
conclusionCRA with mitomycin is considered as an effective method to reduce the recurrence of pterygium after operation. This technique can be used as an acceptable method for pterygium operation, especially for patients with insufficient conjunctiva. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe trial was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (http://www.irct.ir) with the Irct ID: IRCT2016092119581N2.
fundingThe study was financially supported by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS) (grants No. 8901).
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.