ArticleBeyoglu eye journal2022
Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction and Refractive Amblyopia Risk Factors: Effect of Age at the Time of Probing.
Article in Beyoglu eye journal, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- FGF10/IGSF3 Variants in Bony Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction: A Genotype-Phenotype Study of Syndromic Versus Isolated Disease.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction: Natural Course, Diagnosis and Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Investigation of Refractive Errors in Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.Beyoglu eye journal · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine whether treatment time of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) has any effect on refractive amblyopia risk factors (ARFs). Methods: This is a cross-sectional study and it was conducted in the Pediatric Ophthalmology Department at Kayseri City Training and Research Hospital. The ages of 174 patients who underwent probing were obtained from electronic medical charts and used to divide the patients into two groups: an early-probing group (<24 months old) and a late-probing group (≥24 months old). After inclusion criteria were applied, a pediatric ophthalmologist examined 189 eyes of the 174 patients. The groups were evaluated and compared for cycloplegic refractive errors. Results: The median age of patients who underwent probing was 30 months (ranging from 11-44 months). A total of 40 of 189 eyes (21.2%) examined had refractive ARFs, which were significantly more prevalent in the late-probing group (p=0.044). The ARFs associated with astigmatism were greater in the late- versus the early-probing group (p=0.037), whereas no other refractive ARFs or anisometropia differed between the groups (p=0.887 for myopia, p=0.364 for hyperopia, and p=0.672 for anisometropia). Astigmatic ARFs were significantly higher in the late-treatment group. Conclusion: Astigmatic ARFs were significantly higher in the late-treatment group. Therefore, ophthalmologists should regularly monitor the refractive status of children with CNLDO, especially those treated after 24 months old.
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.