ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Responding to comments on "Astigmatism in Duane Retraction syndrome".
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This response addresses readers' comments on our study published in BMC Ophthalmology, which analyzed astigmatic variations among Duane Retraction Syndrome (DRS) subtypes. We clarified that our retrospective study relied on clinical data rather than advanced imaging due to practical limitations. Differences in DRS subtype prevalence were attributed to our focus on patients requiring surgical intervention rather than general epidemiological patterns. Age-related refractive variations across different DRS subtypes were found to be statistically insignificant, confirming that age differences did not influence the observed refractive patterns. The potential paradoxical effects of co-contraction and palpebral fissure narrowing on corneal curvature are notable, as both factors can simultaneously influence corneal changes. However, co-contraction may have a more prominent effect on corneal curvature than palpebral fissure narrowing, leading to a tendency toward against-the-rule astigmatism. Data inconsistencies in Table 3 were corrected, and the omission of key symbols in formulas was acknowledged. The insights provided by readers underscore the need for future studies incorporating advanced diagnostics and corneal topographic data to achieve a deeper understanding of astigmatism in DRS.
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.