ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Demographic, Clinical Profile and Management Outcomes of Ocular Chemical Injuries in Saudi Children.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chemical and Thermal Ocular Burns in Children: A Retrospective Single-Center Study of Etiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Prevalence, Characteristics, and Management of Pediatric Ocular Trauma in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Community-Level Awareness of Proper Immediate Steps Regarding Ocular Chemical Injury in Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2023Article
- Demographic profile and clinical characteristics of patients presenting with acute ocular burns.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Toxic External Exposure Leading to Ocular Surface Injury.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Epidemiology and etiology of chemical ocular injury: A brief review.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Eye injuries in children due to chemicals constitute a medical emergency since they result in severe ocular damage. Objective: To determine the factors and management outcomes of chemical burns in the eyes of Saudi children. The study was performed at a tertiary eye center in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: Children aged 16 years and under who had ocular chemical burns from 2009 to 2021 were enrolled in a single-armed cohort study. Data collection was done on patient demographics, injury type, and previous treatment. A modified Roper-Hall classification was used to grade the ocular injuries. The research study revealed the outcome to be best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), one year after presentation and management. Results: This study included 185 eyes from 147 children with chemical burns. The main profile of this study comprised the following categories: male (72.1%), grade 4 injury (27.6%), injury by acid (57.1%), burns at home (66%), and first aid was given to (35.4%) of the children. One year after treatment, there were 58 (31.4%) eyes with BCVA from 20/20 to 20/60, 31 cases (16.8%) with BCVA from 20/60 to 20/200, and 86 (46.5%) cases with severe visual impairment (SVI). Treatments included the release of symblepharon in 34 (18.4%) eyes and amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) in 27 (14.6%) eyes. Poor visual outcomes were correlated with chemical burn severity (RR = 1.45, Conclusion: Visual outcomes of chemical burns in children were not promising even after one year of treatment. Public health initiatives are critical to prevent chemical burns in mitigating the poor visual prognosis.
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.