ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Predictability of visual outcome based on injury size and location following penetrating ocular trauma in children.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPenetrating ocular trauma is the most common form of open globe injury in children. However, the open globe classification may not accurately reflect the impact of different anterior ocular injuries on visual prognosis. This study aimed to analyze the factors influencing the prognosis of pediatric patients with penetrating ocular trauma in Shandong Province and evaluate the applicability of OTS and POTS.
methodsSixty-six pediatric patients from Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, between January 2017 and September 2024, were included in this retrospective study. Patient characteristics, injury causes, initial visual acuity (IVA), final visual acuity (FVA), and treatment were recorded. Injuries in the anterior ocular were reclassified into zones I, II, III, I
resultsA total of 66 patients (mean age 6.9 ± 3.1 years) were included, with 49 males (74.2%) and 17 females (25.8%). OTS and POTS both correlated with FVA (r = -0.313, p = 0.032; r = -0.270, p = 0.028) but underestimated good outcomes in the ≥ 0.5 group (p = 0.029, p = 0.016, p < 0.05). FVA ≥ 0.5 was defined as a successful outcome, and the best outcomes were in zones II and III (100% success), and the poorest outcomes were in zone I
conclusionLarger and more centrally located injuries are associated with worse prognoses, older age and more peripherally located injuries are associated with better prognoses. OTS and POTS tend to underestimate the probability of good visual outcomes, indicating limitations in their applicability.
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.