ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Assessment of Office-Based Probing with Dacryoendoscopy for Treatment of Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Q-Needle-Assisted Intraductal Injection Enhances Dacryoendoscopic Surgery for Primary Acquired Lacrimal Drainage Obstruction: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Dacryoendoscopy as a frontier technology for lacrimal drainage disorders.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Evaluating a Decade of Surgical Solutions: Pediatric Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Treatment Outcomes in Malaysia.Cureus · 2024Article
- Diversity in Lacrimal Pathway Morphology Among Patients with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of office-based probing with dacryoendoscopy under local anesthesia for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO). This single-institution study retrospectively reviewed data on 72 eyes of 64 consecutive children (38 boys, 43 eyes; 26 girls, 29 eyes), aged between 6 and 17 (mean age: 10.0 ± 2.7) months with suspected CNLDO, from July 2016 to February 2022. These patients underwent probing with dacryoendoscopy under local anesthesia. CNLDO was diagnosed clinically based on the presence of epiphora and sticky eyes due to mucous discharge commencing within the first 3 months of life, increased tear meniscus height, and fluorescein dye disappearance test results. A total of 63 of the 72 eyes had narrowly defined CNLDO, and 9 eyes had other types of obstructions. The intervention success rate was 100% (63/63 eyes) for patients with typical CNLDO and 97.2% (70/72 eyes) for the entire study cohort. Moreover, CNLDO was classified into five types based on the features of the distal end of the nasolacrimal duct. Probing with dacryoendoscopy is safe and yields a high success rate in pediatric patients with CNLDO. This is the first study to assess the safety and efficacy of probing with dacryoendoscopy under local anesthesia in pediatric patients with CNLDO.
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.