ArticleScientific reports2023
Proportion and characteristics of lacrimal drainage pathway disease and keratopathy in non-infectious corneal perforation using lacrimal syringing test.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation and comparison of the clinical significance of miR-21-5p levels from different specimen sources in patients with fungal keratitis.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Lacrimal drainage pathway disease-associated keratopathy effectively diagnosed with dacryoendoscopy: a report of two cases.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- A lacrimal drainage pathway disease-associated keratopathy (LDAK) case with non-infectious endophthalmitis.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2024Article
- Dacryoendoscopy: Historical development, philosophical foundation, and clinical perspective.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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lacrimal drainage pathway disease-associated keratopathy (LDAK) has been associated with corneal perforation, which arises from both infectious and non-infectious corneal disorders. However, patients with corneal perforation are often not routinely tested for LDAK, and the potential risk posed by LDAK in the development of corneal ulcers has not been investigated in detail. This study aimed to assess the proportion and characteristics of LDAK in patients with non-infectious corneal perforation using lacrimal syringing test. This study enrolled 56 patients with corneal perforation treated at Saitama Medical University Hospital between January 2016 and September 2022. The causes of corneal perforation were trauma (n = 17, 30%), infection (n = 19, 34%), non-infection (n = 16, 29%), and unknown (n = 4, 7%). A lacrimal syringing test was performed on 12 patients with non-infectious corneal perforation and 4 with an unknown diagnosis. Among the 16 patients with non-infectious corneal perforation, 13 (81%) had lacrimal drainage disease, but only 3 (19%) patients had lacrimal puncta, as revealed by slit-lamp examinations. The primary bacterial species identified in lacrimal obstructive disease and lacrimal canaliculitis were Staphylococcus spp. and Actinomycetes spp. respectively. Lower temporal and peripheral corneal perforations were common. All patients underwent lacrimal surgery, and 6 (38%) were treated for corneal perforation without corneal surgery. Interestingly, several patients with LDAK who did not exhibit any lacrimal duct obstruction on slit-lamp examination. The study findings demonstrate the significance of the lacrimal syringing test for assessing LDAK in patients with corneal perforation, indicating LDAK as a potential cause of corneal perforation.
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.