ReviewCureus2025
Minimally Invasive Strabismus Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Complications and Efficacy.
Review in Cureus, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive strabismus surgery (MISS) has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional strabismus surgery. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of MISS with the standard surgical approach. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant studies that included patients who complained of strabismus and underwent MISS or traditional surgeries, English studies, and that were conducted from conception until November 16, 2024. Pooled analysis was performed to compare postoperative alignment, visual acuity, surgery duration, and various postoperative complications between MISS and the standard approach. MISS demonstrated comparable outcomes to the standard approach in terms of postoperative alignment and visual acuity. It was associated with significantly shorter operative times. Both techniques had similar postoperative complication profiles, with MISS showing a lower risk of postoperative scarring. However, the risk of bias in some studies and the limited number of studies for certain outcomes raise concerns about the generalizability of the findings. This meta-analysis suggests that MISS is a safe and effective alternative to traditional strabismus surgery. It offers the advantages of shorter operative time and reduced postoperative scarring. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to assess the long-term outcomes of MISS.
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.