ArticleScientific reports2025
A study on postural care after macular hole surgery based on a novel positioning sensor.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the application of a postoperative positioning sensor device with real-time dynamic feedback after idiopathic macular hole (IMH) surgery and the distribution of the effective prone time during the postoperative period. Postoperatively, all patients were instructed to wear the positioning sensor for 1 day. The cumulative time in the effective prone position was recorded. Among 18 included participants, the mean total effective face-down position (FDP) time was 9.3 h (SD = 4.0). In the first and last 12 h, the median effective FDP times were 7.1 (4.9, 8.4) and 2.4 (0.2, 4.0) (Z = - 3.720, p < 0.001) hours, respectively. In the first, middle, and last 8 h, the effective FDP times were 5.1 (4.1, 5.7), 2.6 (1.2, 4.6), and 0.9 (0.3, 3.2) hours, respectively (H = 20.24, p < 0.001). The first 8 h differed significantly from both the middle (p = 0.006) and the last 8 h (p < 0.001). The questionnaires indicated positive acceptance of the device. The novel device provided great help for postoperative care of patients and produced significant differences in effective prone time distributions within 1 day.
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.