ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2018
Subsequent strabismus surgeries in patients with no prior medical records.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Outcomes of OCT imaging-based reoperations in strabismus.BMC ophthalmology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate subsequent strabismus surgeries in patients with no prior medical record and to evaluate discrepancies between surgical findings and preoperative presumptions made based on patient self-reporting and clinical findings.
methodsThe medical records of patients who underwent a subsequent strabismus surgery between January 1992 and October 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with no available medical records were included in analyses. Discrepancies between preoperative presumptions and surgical findings were investigated. Original ocular alignment and previous surgical details were presumed using alternative methods, including patient self-reporting, review old photographs of patient, and checking conjunctival scarring.
resultsEleven consecutive patients (4 females, 7 males) met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at subsequent surgery was 47.7 years (range, 23-69). Seven patients had exotropia and four patients had esotropia before the subsequent surgery. Seven patients reported originally having exotropia and four patients reported originally having esotropia. However, findings from surgical exploration did not agree with preoperative presumptions from patient self-reporting in 7 of 11 patients (7/11, 63.6%). These discrepancies included errors in the original type of strabismus (7/11, 63.6%), which eye was previously operated on (1/11, 9.1%), and number of prior surgeries (1/11, 9.1%).
conclusionWhen planning a subsequent strabismus surgery in patients with no prior medical record, information obtained from the patient should be used with caution. This includes the original type of strabismus and previous surgical details.
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.