ReviewCureus2026
Surgical Outcomes of Intermittent Exotropia in Adults: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adult intermittent exotropia (IXT) is less well studied than paediatric IXT, yet counselling is challenging due to postoperative exodrift, diplopia risk, and differing functional expectations. This systematic review synthesised surgical outcomes for adult (≥18 years) IXT. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-guided systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE was performed using two searches ("surgical" AND "outcomes" AND "exotropia"; "surgery" AND "intermittent exotropia"), limited to English-language human studies published within the last 10 years. Eligible studies reported postoperative motor alignment and/or reoperation, diplopia, drift, or binocular outcomes in adults with IXT. Motor success was narratively standardised to ≤10 prism dioptres (PD) of orthotropia at distance (allowing ≤5 PD esodeviation where applicable). Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Due to heterogeneity in outcomes and follow-up, meta-analysis was not undertaken. Six studies (one randomised prospective interventional study and five retrospective cohorts) comprising 552 participants were included. Mean age ranged from 27 to 42 years, and preoperative distance deviation was typically 30-40 PD (one study >50 PD). Reported motor success ranged from 47.6% to 90% across primary endpoints of three months to two years or longer, with most studies demonstrating progressive exotropic drift over time. Diplopia was generally transient and varied by early postoperative alignment and intervention. No major adverse events occurred, and a low reoperation rate was reported. Overall risk of bias was serious in most studies, primarily due to confounding and selection bias. Adult IXT surgery achieves moderate-to-high motor success, but outcomes vary with technique, early alignment, and follow-up duration. Prospective adult-only studies with standardised endpoints and patient-centred outcomes are needed.
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.