Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40696676›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2025

Evaluation of ocular findings in children with autism spectrum disorder: Observational study.

Ulku Demir

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ulku DemirDepartment of Ophthalmology, Inonu University Faculty of Medicine, Malatya, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-9430-8043

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to emphasize the significance of ophthalmologic examination in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and evaluate the ophthalmologic findings and their frequency. We retrospectively analyzed the files of 40 boys and 20 girls aged 4 to 18. In cycloplegic spherical equivalents, -0.50 diopter (D) or more myopia, ≥+2.0D hyperopia and ≥±1D astigmatism in cylindrical equivalents were accepted. Patients with ≥1D difference in spherical or cylindrical equivalents between the 2 eyes were considered anisometropic. Amblyopia was defined as a best-corrected visual acuity ≤0.8 with Snellen chart and a difference of at least 2 lines between both eyes. Children were grouped as myopia, hyperopia, myopia astigmatism, hyperopia astigmatism, mixed astigmatism, emmetrope and anisometropia according to refractive errors. Strabismus was classified as esotropia, exotropia and orthophoric. Forty (66.66%) of the patients with ASD were boys and 20 (33.33%) were girls. Emmetropia was found in 38.33%, myopia in 3.33%, hyperopia in 21.66%, myopia astigmatism in 16.66%, hyperopia astigmatism in 14.99%, mixed astigmatism in 1.66%, anisometropia in 6.66%, amblyopia in 6.66%, esotropia in 9.99%, exotropia in 11.66%, ptosis in 4.99%, and nystagmus in 1.66%. There was no statistically significant difference in the findings except hyperopia according to gender (P > .05). Hyperopia (P = .022) showed a statistically significant difference according to gender (P < .05). Children with ASD have significant ophthalmological abnormalities. Early diagnosis and treatment of refractive errors and other eye problems may contribute to these children's psychomotor and social development.

Indexed as

Autism Spectrum DisorderRefractive ErrorsAdolescentAmblyopiaChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesStrabismusVisual Acuityautism spectrum disorderchildrenrefractive errorstrabismusvisual acuity

Identifiers

PMID40696676
PMCPMC12282795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.