Observational studyIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Clinico-demographic profile and management outcomes of periocular and subconjunctival dirofilariasis in South India.
Observational study in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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
purposeTo report the clinico-demographic profile and management outcomes of periocular and subconjunctival dirofilariasis.
designRetrospective observational study.
settingInstitutional study. METHODS STUDY POPULATION: Seventy patients (79 eyes) with periocular and subconjunctival dirofilariasis in a tertiary eye institute in South India over the past 11 years (2013-2024). The inclusion criteria include only those cases that are confirmed by histopathology or microbiology examination. Patients with histopathology examination suggestive of only parasitic etiology without definitive features of Dirofilaria were excluded from the study. OBSERVATION PROCEDURE: The case records were reviewed to document the clinico-demographic profile, imaging, microbiological and/or histopathological features, and management outcomes. THE
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was complete resolution of symptoms and signs.
resultsThe mean age at presentation was 47.73+/-19.4 years. There were 29 males and 50 females. The mean duration of symptoms was 1.36+/- 2.14 months. The most common presentation was a lid mass (70.9%). The most common location of the worm was in the lower lid (43.1%), followed by the upper lid (31.6%), subconjunctival space (21.5%), orbit (2.5%), and suprabrow (1.3%). Ultrasound sonography (USG) was done in 19% cases, of which 17.7% showed characteristic features suggestive of Dirofilaria. Direct worm removal was done in nine (11.4%) patients, and excisional biopsy in 69 (87.3%). In one (1.3%) patient, the worm was found accidentally during a lower lid blepharoplasty.
conclusionWe conclude that dirofilariasis should be considered an important differential diagnosis in subcutaneous migratory swellings, conjunctival nodules, and periocular inflammatory and mass lesions. An ultrasound scan should be considered as the imaging of choice in suspected periocular dirofilariasis.
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.