ArticleBMC research notes2019
A comparison of ocular trauma scores in a pediatric population.
Article in BMC research notes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric Ocular Trauma: Not Just a Pediatric Trauma Center Problem.Pediatric emergency care · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and factors influencing visual outcome in paediatric ocular trauma at a tertiary health institution in Ghana.Ghana medical journal · 2025Article
- Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Patients of Neonatal and Pediatric Age Subjected to Eye Surgery: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Consensus Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Predictive values of the Pediatric Penetrating Ocular Trauma Score and the Toddler/Infant Ocular Trauma Score in Brazilian children with open globe injury.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Predictive value and applicability of ocular trauma scores and pediatric ocular trauma scores in pediatric globe injuries.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Epidemiology and Visual Outcome of Pediatric Ocular Trauma in a Major Tertiary Eye Center in Tunisia: A 6-Year Retrospective Study.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
- Prognostic value of Ocular Trauma Score and pediatric Penetrating Ocular Trauma Score in predicting the visual prognosis following ocular injury.Romanian 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePediatric ocular trauma represents a major concern for ophthalmologists. Delays in presentation, incomplete exams, inaccurate visual acuity (VA) results, and amblyopia can limit accurately predicting final visual outcomes in pediatric eye trauma. We performed a retrospective clinical study to describe the demographics and causes of eye trauma. We also compared 2 ocular trauma scoring systems, one specifically designed for pediatric trauma, to classify injuries and determine which better predicted VA outcomes. A retrospective chart review of 3 years of pediatric globe trauma was performed. Analysis was focused on mechanisms of injury and VA outcomes. Complex factors that may worsen outcomes were recorded. Ocular trauma score (OTS) and pediatric ocular trauma score (POTS) were used to assign Groups 1-5 to each case. Group 1 was poorest prognosis, Group 5 best. Association between Group and final VA was examined. Accuracy of the two systems was compared.
results23 children met eligibility criteria (13 male). Initial VA averaged 20/200 (range no light perception (NLP)-20/20). Final VA was 20/150 (range no light perception (NLP)-20/20). Objects of injury were sharp metallic household objects (7), miscellaneous (4), toys (3), BB pellets (2), stick/wood (2), pencil/pen (1).
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.