ArticleThe neuroradiology journal2023
Non-contrast MR dacryocystography for the evaluation of epiphora and recurrent dacryocystitis: A preliminary study.
Article in The neuroradiology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic Resonance Dacryocystography for Precise Diagnosis of Lacrimal and Perilacrimal Lesions.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Interventions in functional epiphora-a systematic review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of MR dacryocystography (MRD) and dacryoscintigraphy (DSG) in NLDO-related acquired epiphora.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- From pixels to precision: Imaging technologies shaping oculofacial plastic surgery practice.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionObstruction of the lacrimal drainage represents a common ophthalmologic issue. The blockage may interest any level of the lacrimal drainage pathway, and it is important to find the site of obstruction to plan the most appropriate treatment. In this study, findings from magnetic resonance (MR) dacryocystography were compared with findings from endoscopic and surgical procedures to evaluate the accuracy of MR dacryocystography in localizing the site of nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
methodsWe enrolled twenty-one patients with clinical suspicion of nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent dacryoendoscopy and surgery. MR dacryocystography was performed with a heavily T2-weighted fast spin echo sequence in the coronal planes. Before the MRI was performed, a sterile 0.9% NaCl solution was administered into both conjunctival sacs. For each examination, two independent readers (with 8 and 10 years of experience in head and neck imaging) evaluated both heavily 3D space T2-weighted and STIR sequences.
resultsStenosis/obstruction of nasolacrimal duct or lacrimal sac was diagnosed in all 21 patients who underwent MRI dacryocystography. In particular, the site of the obstruction was classified as lacrimal sac in 12 (57%) patients, nasolacrimal duct in 6 (29%) patients, and canaliculi in 3 (14%) patients by both readers. By comparison with the evidence resulting from the endoscopy, there were differences between MRI dacryocystography and dacryoendoscopy in the evaluation of the obstruction's site in three patients, with an overall accuracy of 85.7%.
conclusionMR dacryocystography allows a non-invasive evaluation of the lacrimal drainage pathway, valid for the planning of the most appropriate treatment.
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.