ReviewInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2019
EOM Pulleys and Sequelae: A Critical Review.
Review in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanics Explains Variability of Response of Small Hypertropia to Graded Vertical Rectus Tenotomy.American journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Author Response to Letter Regarding IOVS Publication "Investigation of Selective Innervation of Extraocular Muscle".Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- Investigation of Selective Innervation of Extraocular Muscle Compartments.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- Biomechanical modeling of actively controlled rectus extraocular muscle pulleys.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Author Response: Letter to the Editor of IOVS From Joseph L. Demer and Robert A. Clark Regarding Joel M. Miller, "EOM Pulleys and Sequelae: A Critical Review".Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
- Letter to the Editor of IOVS From Joseph L. Demer and Robert A. Clark Regarding Joel M. Miller, "EOM Pulleys and Sequelae: A Critical Review".Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The discovery of extraocular muscle (EOM) pulleys resolved long-standing issues in oculomotor physiology, revived interest in EOM function generally, and led to several new theories. We describe the pulley concept of Miller and Demer (M-D Pulleys) and briefly review evidence, distinguishing this well-supported notion from the Active Pulley Hypothesis (APH) and the EOM Compartments hypothesis, and critically reviewing the methodologies and evidence on which the latter are based. Methods: We analyze evidence on mechanical independence of individual EOM fibers, implications of nerve tracing for functional independence of EOM layers and compartments, validity of image-based methods of assessing EOM contraction, and data analysis issues. Conclusions: M-D Pulleys are well-supported by several lines of evidence from several labs. The APH, which predicts relative movements of EOM lamina sufficient to alter muscle actions, has been effectively disproved. The width-wise articulations of EOM Compartments, in contrast, might produce significant contractile oculorotary force gradients across muscle tendons, although existing evidence is unconvincing. We suggest how this hypothesis could be effectively tested.
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.