ArticlePloS one2026
Surgical outcome of unilateral recess-resect in convergence insufficiency-type intermittent exotropia: Comparison of two surgical formulae.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe compared the surgical outcomes of monocular lateral rectus recession-medial rectus resection (RR) for convergence insufficiency-type intermittent exotropia (CI-type IXT) using two different formulas.
methodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent unilateral RR for CI-type IXT with at least 6 months follow-up was done. In group 1 (58 patients), RR was determined based on the average of distance and near exodeviation. In group 2 (80 patients), lateral rectus (LR) recession amount was based on the exodeviation at distance and medial rectus (MR) resection was done as the same amount of LR recession (symmetric RR).
resultsGroup 2 showed greater esodeviation at distance and near until postoperative 1 month, however, there was no significant difference in deviation angles between the two groups from 3 to 24 months. Both groups showed significant reduction in near-distance difference up to postoperative 24 months (p < 0.05): from 8.3 PD preoperatively to 1.0 at 24 months in group 1 and from 9.3 to 3.8 in group 2. The success rate at 24 months was 72.7% and 67.6% in group 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.795).
conclusionRR based on the average of distance and near exodeviation and the symmetric RR can successfully collapse the near-distance difference while achieving favorable surgical outcomes.
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.