ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2018
A survey of incidental ocular trauma by pencil and pen.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2018. 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.
- Epidemiology and factors influencing visual outcome in paediatric ocular trauma at a tertiary health institution in Ghana.Ghana medical journal · 2025Article
- Epidemiological Characteristics of Pediatric Ocular Trauma in China: A Multicenter Retrospective Hospital-Based Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Pediatric open globe injury in left-behind children treated by pars plana vitrectomy in China.Translational pediatrics · 2021Article
- Intraorbital wooden foreign bodies: case series and literature review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Review
- Multidisciplinary Management of an Orbitocranial Penetrating Injury by a Pencil in a Paediatric Patient - A Case Report.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine characteristic features of ocular trauma resulted from self-trauma by writing instruments among pediatric population.
methodsThirty-six children who suffered from self-inflicted ocular trauma with a writing instrument were included in this prospective cross-sectional study.
resultsThe mean age was 5.6±2.7y with male: female ratio of 1.77. The right eye was involved two times more than the left eye. The superomedial (55.5%) and inferomedial (30.6%) quadrants were the most common sites of injury. The leading culprit was colored pencils (44.4%). During surgical exploration, no foreign body (FB) was found in 25 (69.4%) patients while an FB was found in 11 (30.5%) patients. Brain injury was present in two patients (5.6%) and only in superomedial quadrant injuries. Zone 1 was the most common site for ocular trauma associated with penetrating injury. The mean ocular trauma score (OTS) in penetrating injuries was 3.8±1.2. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.3±0.6 upon admittance and 0.08±0.21 after one year. The final BCVA was significantly correlated with the entrance site, better final BCVA was found in nasal entrance site (
conclusionThe ophthalmologists should keep a high index of suspicion to rule out penetrating eye injuries related to writing instruments in a young uncooperative child. Brain injury is a life-threatening event that should be ruled out by appropriate imaging. Medial canthal area as the most common site needs an especial attention in writing instrument injuries.
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.