Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2026
Augmented medial rectus recession versus botulinum toxin therapy for acute acquired comitant esotropia: analysis of outcomes and recurrence predictors.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of surgical outcomes and intervention threshold for small-angle acute acquired comitant esotropia.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Functional and Metabolic Abnormalities in Primary Visual Cortex and Frontal Eye Fields and Candidate Biomarkers of Acute Acquired Comitant Esotropia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Does Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery Improve Quality of Life Compared to Sternotomy? A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the motor and sensory outcomes and quality of life (QOL) of augmented medial rectus recession (aMRc) and botulinum toxin A (BTXA) therapy in acute acquired comitant esotropia (AACE) treatment and to investigate the predictors of recurrence.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, non-randomised clinical trial that enrolled 63 AACE patients with a disease course of 6 months to 2 years and deviation angles of 15 to 60 prism diopters. The patients were assigned to BTXA (n=31) and aMRc group (n=32). We compared and analysed the deviation angles, fusion amplitudes (FA) of convergence and divergence, stereopsis, and scores of QOL and diplopia between the two groups before treatment and at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.
resultsBoth groups exhibited significant improvements in motor and sensory outcomes. The aMRc group showed more stable and satisfactory deviation than the BTXA group at 6 and 12 months post-treatment, with a significant increase in divergent FA. The aMRc group achieved a higher success rate (93.75%) than the BTXA group (64.52%) 1 year post-treatment. QOL improved significantly in both groups after treatment, except for reading function in the BTXA group. Compared with the BTXA group, the aMRc group showed greater improvements in self-perception, general function, and diplopia scores (p<0.05). Survival analysis revealed a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.0046). Treatment method and convergent FA at near before treatment were identified as recurrence predictors (p=0.023 and 0.025).
conclusionsAugmented MRc treatment was superior to BTXA injection in AACE patients with courses >6 months during 1-year observation, particularly in maintaining alignment, eliminating diplopia and improving divergent FA and QOL. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2300068735.
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.