ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Six years after manual small incision cataract surgery-Perspective from a secondary level eye hospital in Rural India.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Incidence and risk factors for vitreous loss in residents performing manual small-incision cataract surgery.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We assessed the long-term impact of manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) in rural Central India using patient reported outcomes (PRO). Methods: 841 patients undergoing MSICS by a single surgeon from January 2012 to July 2013 were included. The same patients were contacted telephonically in November 2019 and were asked to report their perceived outcome of the cataract surgery. Data on the fellow eye status were also collected. These data were compared with objective data recorded at the time of surgery. Results: The mean age was 61.53 ± 10.9 with 59% women. 96% had presenting visual acuity (VA) ≤5/60. 86% had visually significant cataract in the fellow eye; 2.5% were cataract blind. 85% had unaided VA ≥ 6/18 at 6 weeks. 223 patients were contactable by telephone after 6 years. 55 had expired and their relatives gave the information. Of these, 90% reported "good" outcome. PRO at 6 years and unaided VA at 6 weeks after surgery correlated significantly (P = 0.05). 40% had undergone cataract surgery of the fellow eye in the interim. Of those who reported "not good" outcome, 70% had undergone fellow eye surgery, compared with 38% in those who reported "good" outcome (P = 0.005). Conclusion: Telephonic PRO correlates with unaided VA 6 years after cataract surgery and could replace a follow-up visit. A PRO of poor vision in the already operated eye was the only factor correlating with fellow eye surgery.
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.