Observational studyPloS one2019
Amblyopia risk factors in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: A longitudinal case-control study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2019. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: clinical guideline.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Investigation of Refractive Errors in Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.Beyoglu eye journal · 2024Article
- Success rates of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at various ages.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate longitudinal changes in risk factors for amblyopia in children treated with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO).
methodsRetrospective observational case control study. A total of 446 children under 4 years of age who underwent probing and/or intubation for CNLDO between January 2004 and January 2018, and 446 age-matched controls were included. Cycloplegic refraction and ocular alignment were investigated at the time of treatment and after at least one year of symptom improvement. Children were classified as having amblyopia risk factors on the basis of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus guideline in 2013.
main outcome measuresThe prevalence of amblyogenic refractive errors, and determinants associated with the presence of amblyogenic refractive errors in CNLDO patients.
resultsThe prevalence of amblyogenic refractive errors in CNLDO patients (5.4%) was similar to that of the control group (6.5%) (P = 0.571). After one year of symptom improvement in CNLDO patients, the prevalence of amblyogenic refractive errors was 4.7%. There was no difference in the prevalence of amblyogenic refractive errors between unilateral and bilateral CNLDO patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that manifest strabismus was the only risk factor related with the presence of amblyogenic refractive errors (odds ratio = 6.383, confidence interval = 1.205-33.826, P = 0.029).
conclusionsThis study found no evidence to suggest that the prevalence of amblyopia risk factors is higher in CNLDO patients compared with normal controls. Manifest strabismus was the only determinant associated with the presence of amblyogenic refractive errors.
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.