Trial reportJapanese journal of ophthalmology2024
Bilateral medial rectus recession with or without posterior fixation in large-angle infantile esotropia: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 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.
- Surgical Dosing for Correction of Consecutive Exotropia.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the results of bilateral medial rectus recession (BMRc) versus bilateral medial rectus recession with Faden operation (BMRF) in the treatment of large-angle infantile esotropia. STUDY
designA double blinded, parallel, randomized controlled trial.
methodsPatients with large-angle infantile esotropia (≥ 60 prism diopters, [PD]) aged between 3 and 15 years old were included and assigned to either the BMRc or BMRF group. Mean difference and mean reduction of angle deviation between the two groups were compared at 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months by using generalized estimating equations analysis. Surgical success rates, defined as an esodeviation ≤ 10 PD at near fixation, were evaluated at 6 months postoperatively. Complications from the surgical procedures were observed.
resultsOf 40 enrolled patients, the mean (SD) age of the patients in the BMRc group was 3.4 (1.9), and in the BMRF group, 5.2 (3.8) years old. The overall mean differences of angle reduction between both groups were not significant (-6 PD, 95%CI -14 to 2, P = .12). The surgical success rate at 6 months in the BMRF group (72%) was not different compared to BMRc group (84%, P = .45). Overall consecutive exotropia was 5%, not different between groups (P > .99). There was no difference of complications between the two groups (P = .51).
conclusionBMRF and BMRc approaches show no difference in treatment of large-angle infantile esotropia. Nevertheless, a long-term assessment for consecutive exotropia should be considered for both surgical procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39105998What 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.