Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31713750›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2020

Correlation analysis of the clinical features and prognosis of acute ocular burns-exploration of a new classification scheme.

Fuyan Wang, Jun Cheng, Hualei Zhai, Yanling Dong, Hua Li, Lixin Xie

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Issues of rehabilitation of the patients with symblepharon using oral mucosal autografts.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fuyan WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Clinical Medical College of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Jun ChengState Key Laboratory Cultivation Base, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Shandong Eye Institute, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Qingdao, China.
Hualei ZhaiState Key Laboratory Cultivation Base, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Shandong Eye Institute, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Qingdao, China.
Yanling DongState Key Laboratory Cultivation Base, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Shandong Eye Institute, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Qingdao, China.
Hua LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Clinical Medical College of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Lixin XieState Key Laboratory Cultivation Base, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Shandong Eye Institute, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Qingdao, China. lixin_xie@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3577-5768

Funding

The National Science Foundation of Shandong Province ZR2017BH026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore a new classification scheme for acute ocular burns.

methodsMedical records of 345 patients (450 eyes) with acute ocular burns treated at Shandong Eye Institute between January 2013 and January 2018 with a 12-month minimum follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 8 parameters in the acute phase were evaluated and graded on a scale from 0 to 3 according to their severity.

resultsThe key factors affecting the prognosis of acute ocular burns were conjunctival involvement (386 eyes, 85.8%), corneal epithelial defect (349 eyes, 77.6%), and limbal ischemia (244 eyes, 54.2%). Visual acuity in 181/450 eyes (40.2%) was worse than 6/60. The injury severity of the cornea, limbus, bulbar conjunctiva, eyelid, and fornix and intraocular signs in the acute phase was significantly correlated with the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (correlation coefficient [R] 0.481-0.933, P < 0.0001) and corneal opacification, neovascularization, and symblepharon scores in the stable phase (R 0.513-0.855, P < 0.0001). The mean total score for the 8 parameters in the acute phase was 5.34 ± 4.04 (range 0-14); higher scores indicated worse visual acuity (R = 0.899, P < 0.0001). The total score for acute-phase parameters was significantly correlated with that for the stable-phase parameters (R = 0.872, P < 0.0001).

conclusionsThe severity of acute-phase parameters is significantly correlated with the final visual outcome and prognosis. The new grading scheme can help clinicians more accurately analyze the degree of ocular burns, determine a reasonable treatment protocol, and rationally evaluate the prognosis.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAdolescentAdultAgedAmnionBurns, ChemicalChildChild, PreschoolConjunctivaCorneaCorneal TransplantationEye BurnsFemaleHumansInfantMaleAcute ocular burnsClinical featuresNew classification schemePrognosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.