Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Evaluation of reinforced plication as an alternative to resection in exotropia.
Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Efficacy of transposition of plicated medial rectus muscles in the treatment of A- or V- pattern exotropia (An Egyptian comparative study).Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Strabismus Surgery for Psychosocial Reasons-A Literature Review.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the surgical efficacy of reinforced plication of the medial rectus muscle to resection as an effective muscle strengthening procedure in exotropia.
methodsThis is a prospective randomized trial in patients with exotropia who underwent complete orthoptic evaluation followed by random assignment into two groups by using a computer-drawn random number table. Group 1 patients underwent standard resection with recession procedure, and group 2 patients underwent reinforced plication with recession procedure. Follow-up was performed at day 1, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months to assess the surgical efficacy.
resultsA total of 80 patients were included in the study of which 39 were in group 1 and 41 in group 2. The mean age in group 1 was 23.48 ± 11.94 years and 23.29 ± 10.02 years in group 2. The mean preoperative deviation in group 1 for distance was 50.13 ± 11.95 PD and 50.12 ± 9.79 PD in group 2 (P = 0.499). In group 1 with a mean surgical dose of 5.27 mm medial rectus resection and 8.04 mm lateral rectus recession, a 7.11 ± 3.95 PD deviation was noted at the end of 6 months. Similarly, in group 2 with a mean surgical dose of 5.16 mm medial rectus plication and 8.16 mm lateral rectus recession, a 6.00 ± 2.46 PD deviation was noted at the end of 6 months. Between groups, ocular surface changes, inter-surgeon comparison, and exotropia subtypes did not reveal any significant differences.
conclusionIn our observation, the reinforced medial rectus muscle plication showed clinically comparable results as compared to the standard resection procedure at the end of 6 months. Therefore, this innovative modification can be considered as an alternative to standard resection.
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.