Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38059998›Full record

SynthesisGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024

Assessing the success rate of treatment in simple and complex congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bahram Eshraghi, Leila Babaei, Maryam Moradi, Samira Chaibakhsh, Ali Aghajani

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bahram EshraghiIsfahan Eye Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Leila BabaeiIsfahan Eye Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Maryam MoradiEye Research Center, Eye Department, School of Medicine, The Five Senses Health Institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Samira ChaibakhshEye Research Center, Eye Department, School of Medicine, The Five Senses Health Institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. smr.chaibakhsh@gmail.com.
Ali AghajaniIsfahan Eye Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. aliaghajani_y@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7790-6033
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess and compare the success rate (SR) of probing and intubation in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO).

methodsWe conducted a literature search for identifying relevant studies published in English using PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from the date of inception to Feb 2023. After extracting data, the SR was compared between the study groups: simple and complex CNLDO. To compare the treatment outcome, the mean difference of the SR was considered as the effect size. Random effects model or fixed effects model were performed for statistical inferences.

resultsA total of 21 studies were eligible to be analyzed. The pooled SR of treatment was 88% in simple, and 57% in complex CNLDO. Exerting intubation in increased the SR from 87% (SR of probing) to 92% in simple CNLDO which was not significant. However, compared to probing, intubation has a significantly higher SR in complex CNLDO (46 to 82%). While the SR of probing was significantly lower in complex CNLDO, the difference between the SR of intubation was not significant between groups. Although increasing the age does not have an adverse effect on the SR in simple CNDLO, it causes a significant decrease in the SR of complex group.

conclusionThis study revealed that even though the addition of NLD intubation does not provide significant benefits beyond probing alone for patients with simple CNLDO, in children with complex CNLDO, NLD intubation should be considered as a primary treatment due to its substantial increase in surgical success rates. Delaying the treatment would increase its success in patients with complex but not the simple CNLDO.

Indexed as

DacryocystorhinostomyIntubationLacrimal Duct ObstructionNasolacrimal DuctHumansTreatment OutcomeComplex congenital NLDONLD intubationNLD probingSimple congenital NLDO

Identifiers

PMID38059998
OpenAlexW4389445427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.