ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Magnetic Resonance Dacryocystography for Precise Diagnosis of Lacrimal and Perilacrimal Lesions.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The accurate determination of the etiology and location of lacrimal passage obstruction is key to treatment. However, the main assessments for lacrimal passage are invasive and have limited value. This study aimed to analyze the causes of obstruction of the lacrimal passage and investigate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance dacryocystography (MRD). Methods: Fifty-six patients (69 eyes) with lacrimal disease underwent MRD after lacrimal irrigation. The stenotic site and degree were determined. The accuracies of the diagnoses of lesions at different sites based on MRD and routine clinical assessment were determined and compared, and a noninferiority test was used to verify the values obtained via MRD. Results: The lesion location determined through lacrimal irrigation was inconsistent with that determined through MRD. The overall accuracy of routine clinical assessment was approximately 79.7% (55 of 69) and that of MRD reached 98.6% (68 of 69). For the lesion location, the clinical misdiagnosis rates were 38.9%, 43.8%, and 63.6% for the lacrimal sac, nasolacrimal duct, and perilacrimal passage, respectively. The MRD and surgical pathology results for the lacrimal sac, nasolacrimal duct, and perilacrimal passage were consistent, except for the lacrimal canaliculus. The P value for the noninferiority of MRD to surgical pathology was 0.32. Conclusions: MRD is noninvasive and has high value for determining the cause, location, and degree of lacrimal stenosis. Its findings are nearly as accurate as those of surgical pathology. MRD should be recommended over other invasive methods for evaluating lacrimal and prelacrimal lesions.
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.