ArticleInternational ophthalmology2020
Work tool-related eye injuries: Helsinki Ocular Trauma Study.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2020. 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.
- Patterns and Prevention of Occupational Eye Injuries: A Narrative Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Work-related ocular trauma in the United States: a National Trauma Databank study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Wound size and location affect the prognosis of penetrating ocular injury.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo quantify and characterize the epidemiology, treatments, long-term outcome, and use of resources for work tool-related eye injuries and their severity.
methodsWe included all new patients with a work tool-related eye injury treated at the Helsinki University Eye Hospital in 1 year. The data were from hospital records, examinations, and patient questionnaires. The follow-ups were at 3 months and 6 years.
resultsWork tools caused 3% (37/1151) of all eye injuries. The mean age was 37 and 84% were men. Most injuries (84%) occurred at work (17) or at home (15). There were 14 minor injuries, 12 contusions, 9 open globe injuries (OGI), and 2 eyelid wounds. The annual incidence of work tool-related eye injuries was 2.4/100,000 and hospitalization 0.6/100,000. At 6-year follow-up, we re-examined 18 patients and 17 were interviewed by phone. Four patients were blinded. We recorded 690 sick leave days and 43 major operations. No traumatic glaucoma was diagnosed. Fifteen patients needed lifelong follow-up. Permanent impairment occurred in 30% (11) of work tool-related eye injuries, from whom, nine were caused by manual tools. Work tools comprised 10% of the permanently impaired, but 2.5% of the non-permanently impaired cases among all eye injuries (1151).
conclusionThe proportional difference between the permanently impaired and the non-permanently impaired was higher in work tool-related eye injuries than other causes reported in previous Helsinki Ocular Trauma Studies. High-risk injuries were mainly caused by manual tools and nails and resulted in OGI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31811447What 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.