ArticleScientific reports2024
Ophthalmologists' assessment of the handling characteristics of the novel Finesse Reflex Handle in comparison to those of a conventional handle.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From incision to implantation: holter-based stress profiling in ophthalmology residents during cataract surgery.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling requires a delicate handling technique. It is also important that ophthalmologists can use the ILM forceps handle of their preference. This study objectively and subjectively evaluated the handling of the novel Finesse Reflex Handle (Reflex) in comparison with that of a conventional handle. The force required to close the forceps tips, evaluated using a digital force gauge, was significantly lesser for Reflex than for the conventional handle (3.14 ± 0.09 N vs. 3.84 ± 0.06 N, P < 0.001). Twenty-one ophthalmologists with various levels of experience answered a questionnaire after using both handles, and the total questionnaire score for Reflex was higher than that for the conventional handle (35.0 ± 3.7 vs. 30.0 ± 6.9, P = 0.01). Furthermore, the duration of experience as an ophthalmologist was negatively correlated with the vertical motion, assessed by video analysis, for the conventional handle (P = 0.02, r = - 0.50) but not for Reflex (P = 0.26). In conclusion, objective and subjective analyses revealed that compared with the conventional handle, the novel Reflex handle had more favourable handling characteristics. Most ophthalmologists preferred the handling of Reflex. Reflex may compensate for a lack of surgical experience.
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.