ReviewOphthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery
A Comprehensive Review of Dacryoscintigraphy: Part II-Limitations and Future Direction.
Review in Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery. 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
purposeThis is the second part of the comprehensive review of dacryoscintigraphy (DSG), which evaluates the major factors that hinder the routine utility of DSG and possible future directions to improve the technology.
methodsThe authors performed a PubMed/Medline search of all articles published in English and other languages on DSG. The data analyzed included the techniques and indications of DSG, the interpretation of the results, and the clinical utility and limitations of DSG.
resultsThe present major review suggests that the findings of DSG do not add significantly to a thorough clinical examination. The diagnostic reliability of DSG is limited by the lack of standardization, poor anatomical resolution, poor quality of images, intra and interobserver variability, low specificity, insufficient correlation with clinical findings, the inability to distinguish stenosis from obstructions, and the inability to assess the results of lacrimal surgery. These limitations raise concerns regarding any justification for its use in everyday lacrimal practice.
conclusionsDSG is not routinely used by the vast majority of lacrimal surgeons worldwide given that in most cases, it does not profoundly impact clinical decision-making. The DSG technology needs to be improved. Hybrid camera devices with higher resolution, and new radiotracers that simulate the biological and chemical properties of tears may help pave the way forward.
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.