ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Pediatric blepharokeratoconjunctivitis: findings and outcomes in Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic patients.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDetermine blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) presentation and outcomes in Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic pediatric patients.
methodsRetrospective review of pediatric patients (< 18 years old) with BKC and at least 2 examinations (2018-2022). Details obtained were self-reported race/ethnicity, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), slit lamp findings, and prescribed treatments.
resultsNinety-five patients (59 Females) presented at a median of 8.1 [IQR 5.7, 10.9] years of age and had 4 (IQR 3, 4) visits over 1.3 ([QR 0.8, 2.2] years. Sixty-five (68%) patients identified as Hispanic. There was no difference in age at presentation, number of visits, or follow-up between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients. Initial (0.22 [IQR 0.10, 0.40] vs. 0.06 [IQR 0.00, 0.18], p < 0.01) and final (0.13 [IQR 0.10, 0.40] vs. 0.02 [IQR 0.00, 0.18], p < 0.01) LogMAR BCVA were significantly worse in Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic patients. Logistic analysis showed an association between Hispanic ethnicity and worse initial and final BCVA. However, ethnicity did not correlate with any subset of BKC diagnoses (e.g. corneal scar or ulcer, chalazion, marginal or superficial keratitis) or slit lamp findings. The presence of corneal stromal scarring was associated with worse initial BCVA, regardless of ethnicity. There were no differences in prescribed treatments between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic patients, and no treatments were associated with visual outcomes.
conclusionsBKC was common in Hispanic patients and despite no difference in slit lamp findings or prescribed treatments, Hispanic patients had worse initial and final BCVA. The presence of corneal stromal scarring was also associated with worse visual outcomes.
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.