Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36631894›Full record

ArticleMilitary Medical Research2023

Explosive eye injuries: characteristics, traumatic mechanisms, and prognostic factors for poor visual outcomes.

Ying Zhang, Xin Kang, Qiong Wu, Zhong Zheng, Jun Ying, Mao-Nian Zhang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Military Medical Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Blast injury: Impact to the cornea.Experimental eye research · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Biomechanics of open-globe injury: a review.Biomedical engineering online · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ying Zhang *Senior Department of Ophthalmology, the Third Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100039, China. zhangyingdoc@126.com.
Xin Kang *Department of Ophthalmology, the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Qiong WuMedical Security Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Zhong ZhengInformation Center, Logistics Support Department, Central Military Commission, Beijing, 100842, China.
Jun YingInformation Management Department, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Mao-Nian ZhangSenior Department of Ophthalmology, the Third Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100039, China.
Chinese PLA General Hospital · CNCentral Military Commission · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExplosions can produce blast waves, high-speed medium, thermal radiation, and chemical spatter, leading to complex and compound eye injuries. However, few studies have comprehensively investigated the clinical features of different eye injury types or possible risk factors for poor prognosis.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed all consecutive records of explosive eye injuries (1449 eyes in 1115 inpatients) in 14 tertiary referral hospitals in China over 12 years (between January 2008 and December 2019). Data on demographics, eye injury types, ocular findings, treatments, and factors affecting visual prognosis were extracted from a standardized database of eye injuries and statistically analyzed.

resultsMechanical ocular trauma accounted for 94.00% of explosion-related eye injuries, among which intraocular foreign bodies (IOFBs) resulted in 55.17% of open globe injuries (OGIs) and contusion caused 60.22% of close globe injuries (CGIs). Proliferative vitreous retinopathy (PVR) was more common in perforating (47.06%) and IOFB (26.84%) than in penetrating (8.79%) injuries, and more common with laceration (24.25%) than rupture (9.22%, P < 0.01). However, no difference was observed between rupture and contusion. Ultimately, 9.59% of eyes were removed and the final vision was ≤ 4/200 in 45.82% of patients. Poor presenting vision [odds ratio (OR) = 5.789], full-thickness laceration of the eyeball ≥ 5 mm (OR = 3.665), vitreous hemorrhage (OR = 3.474), IOFB (OR = 3.510), non-mechanical eye injury (NMEI, OR = 2.622, P < 0.001), rupture (OR = 2.362), traumatic optic neuropathy (OR = 2.102), retinal detachment (RD, OR = 2.033), endophthalmitis (OR = 3.281, P < 0.01), contusion (OR = 1.679), ciliary body detachment (OR = 6.592), zone III OGI (OR = 1.940), and PVR (OR = 1.615, P < 0.05) were significant negative predictors for poor visual outcomes.

conclusionsExplosion ocular trauma has complex mechanisms, with multiple eyes involved and poor prognosis. In lethal level I explosion injuries, eyeball rupture is a serious condition, whereas contusion is more likely to improve. In level II injuries, IOFBs are more harmful than penetrating injuries, and level IV represents burn-related eye injuries. PVR is more associated with penetrating mechanisms than with OGI. Identifying the risk predictors for visual prognosis can guide clinicians in the evaluation and treatment of ocular blast injuries.

Indexed as

ContusionsExplosive AgentsEye Foreign BodiesEye Injuries, PenetratingLacerationsHumansPrognosisRetrospective StudiesVisual AcuityExplosive AgentsExplosion-related eye injuryMechanical ocular traumaRisk factorVisual outcome

Identifiers

PMID36631894
PMCPMC9835351
OpenAlexW4315628972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.