ArticleTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology
Outcomes and comparison of nasolacrimal probing for patients older than 12 months.
Article in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Success Rate of the Primary Probing in Pediatric Patients with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Different Age Groups.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating a Decade of Surgical Solutions: Pediatric Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Treatment Outcomes in Malaysia.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we report the results of probing done in our clinic. We also want investigate role of late probing on outcome, especially in children older than 24 and 48 months.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated records of patients who underwent probing under general anaesthesia due to congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction between 2013 and 2017 in Nigde Ömer Halisdemir University Faculty of Medicine in Nigde, Turkey. Success rates of probing for different age groups were compared.
results143 eyes of 123 patients were included in the study. Overall success rate was 93.7% (134 eyes out of 143). We found the success rate as 95.5 in 12-18 months age group, 93.3% in 18-24 months age group, 93.8% in the 24-48 months age group, 86.6% in the 48 months and older age group. Overall success rate in 24 months and older age group was 91.5%. The second operation was performed on seven of the nine patients where the initial surgery failed, and successful results were achieved in six patients. Success rate was 100% after the second surgery in patients older than 48 months.
conclusionThe success rate of probing is high in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction from 12 to 84 months. In patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction who are older than 48 months probing is effective and should be first-choice in this age group in management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Probing may be used even in older patients who had previous unsuccessful probing.
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.