ArticleMedicine2019
Efficacy of nasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for chronic dacryocystitis: A systematic review protocol of randomized controlled trial.
Article in Medicine, 2019. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- To compare the efficacy of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy in the treatment of chronic dacryocystitis based on propensity score matching.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- [Application of CT radiomics in investigating the anatomical basis of chronic dacryocystitis].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2024Article
- Differently Expressed Circular RNAs in Lacrimal Sacs From Patients With Chronic Dacryocystitis.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Effect of care bundles on postoperative pain, negative emotions, and self-care ability of patients with acute dacryocystitis.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of nasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (NED) for patients with chronic dacryocystitis (CD).
methodsThe following 7 electronic databases will be searched from inception to the present: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. In addition, the clinical trials registry and reference lists of included studies will also be searched. We will only include randomized controlled trials of NED for CD in this systematic review. Two review authors independently carry out the study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. Whenever it is possible, we will pool the data and conduct meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsThis study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of NED for patients with CD. The primary outcome includes success rate of ostial patency. The secondary outcomes consist of duration of surgery, quality of life, postoperative complications, and surgeon's comfort.
conclusionThe findings of this study may summarize the latest evidence of NED for patients with CD. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42019123664.
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.