ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2019
Visual Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Intralenticular Foreign Bodies in a Tertiary Hospital in North China.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intralenticular Metallic Foreign Body After Pediatric Ocular Trauma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Visual Outcomes in Patients with Intralenticular Foreign Bodies with Self-Sealing Corneal Penetrating Wounds.Journal of ophthalmology · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to describe the epidemiological and visual outcomes and to identify the main prognostic factors of intralenticular foreign body (ILFB) injuries.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of 21 patients (21 eyes) referred to Hebei Eye Hospital in North China from January 2012 to December 2017, who underwent surgical removal of ILFBs and associated ocular trauma repairs. Data regarding the patient demographics, cause of the injury, nature of the ILFB, clinical features, time interval between the injury and the ILFB removal, time interval between the presentation and the surgery, and the initial and final best-corrected visual acuities (BCVAs) were analyzed, and the main prognostic factors were identified.
resultsMale adults were most affected by ILFBs (90.5%). The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years (median: 46 years, range: 21 to 60 years). None of the patients were wearing goggles at the time of the injury. The most common ILFB cause was hammering the metal (57.1%), and most of the ILFBs were metallic (71.4%). After medical treatment, the final BCVA was improved significantly (
conclusionThis is the first local study to explore the epidemiology of ILFB injuries and to identify the main prognostic factors. There was a significant association between the ILFBs with posterior segment injuries and the final BCVA. Improved public awareness and strengthened education regarding safety are the key approaches to reduce the incidence of eye injuries.
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.