ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2024
Magnetic resonance imaging of extraocular rectus muscles abnormalities in acute acquired concomitant esotropia.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional and Metabolic Abnormalities in Primary Visual Cortex and Frontal Eye Fields and Candidate Biomarkers of Acute Acquired Comitant Esotropia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Botulinum toxin for acute acquired comitant esotropia: clinical outcomes and predictors.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of acute acquired comitant esotropia.International ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Botulinum toxin type A in treating early-stage patients with small-angle acute acquired comitant esotropia.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Alternations of interhemispheric functional connectivity in patients with acute acquired concomitant esotropia: a resting state fMRI study using voxel-mirrored homotopic connectivity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the difference of medial rectus (MR) and lateral rectus (LR) between acute acquired concomitant esotropia (AACE) and the healthy controls (HCs) detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsA case-control study. Eighteen subjects with AACE and eighteen HCs were enrolled. MRI scanning data were conducted in target-controlled central gaze with a 3-Tesla magnetic resonance scanner. Extraocular muscles (EOMs) were scanned in contiguous image planes 2-mm thick spanning the EOM origins to the globe equator. To form posterior partial volumes (PPVs), the LR and MR cross-sections in the image planes 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm posterior to the globe were summed and multiplied by the 2-mm slice thickness. The data were classified according to the right eye, left eye, dominant eye, and non-dominant eye, and the differences in mean cross-sectional area, maximum cross-sectional area, and PPVs of the MR and LR muscle in the AACE group and HCs group were compared under the above classifications respectively.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups of demographic characteristics. The mean cross-sectional area of the LR muscle was significantly greater in the AACE group than that in the HCs group in the non-dominant eyes (
conclusionThe size and volume of muscles dominant eyes of AACE subjects change significantly to overcome binocular diplopia. The LR muscle become larger to compensate for the enhanced convergence in the AACE.
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.