ReviewSurgical neurology international2024
Penetrating orbital trauma: Comprehensive review and meta-analysis of bullet injuries.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retained Bullet in the Orbit Following a Gunshot Wound: Management of Subsequent Complications.Cureus · 2026Article
- Retained plastic foreign body in the orbit after blunt trauma: A case report.Radiology case reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Orbital bullet injuries resulting from high-velocity trauma pose significant clinical challenges due to the potential for severe ocular and systemic complications. This meta-analysis consolidates the existing body of knowledge on direct orbital bullet injuries with respect to clinical outcomes, management strategies, and long-term effects. Methods: The literature search was conducted by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, using databases such as PubMed and Scopus. Seventeen articles were reviewed, out of which six studies met the inclusion criteria. Extracted data included details on study design, sample size, patient demographics, projectile type, clinical presentation, imaging modalities used in establishing the diagnosis, surgical interventions performed, duration of follow-up, and the outcomes achieved. Data synthesis was done using fixed and random effects models; heterogeneity testing was assessed using the I Results: A total of 688 patients with orbital bullet injuries were analyzed. The average age years ranged from 7 to 58, with a predilection for the male gender, about 70%. These injuries caused marked visual impairment, which included optic nerve injuries, legal blindness, cornea injuries, hyphema, orbital fractures, vitreous hemorrhage, lid lacerations, cataracts, and retinal injuries. Optic nerve injuries exhibited substantial variability (I Conclusion: Orbital bullet injuries remain a great clinical challenge and are very variable in nature. This huge variability of injury patterns and outcomes enjoins that treatment must be individualized, with very early intervention, evolved imaging modalities, and thorough surgical management for the best possible improvement in the patient's outcomes and prevention of long-term sequelae. Further studies should be done to come up with unified guidelines regarding the evaluation and treatment of such complex injuries.
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.