Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41918225›Full record

Observational studyAnnals of medicine2026

Factors associated with the recurrence of intermittent exotropia and reoperations in the long term.

Pedro Lino, Pedro Aguiar, João Paulo Cunha

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Annals of medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pedro LinoNOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, Comprehensive Health Research Center, CHRC, LA-REAL,CCAL, NOVA University Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-8237-5521
Pedro AguiarNOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, Comprehensive Health Research Center, CHRC, LA-REAL,CCAL, NOVA University Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0074-7732
João Paulo CunhaOphthalmologist. Coordinator of the Ophthalmology Unit at CUF Cascais Hospital, Cascais, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3162-0531

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate long-term reoperation risk after bilateral lateral rectus (BLR) recession for intermittent exotropia (IXT) in a paediatric cohort, and to identify the perioperative factors associated with recurrence and reoperation.

methodsA retrospective observational cohort of 258 children with basic or divergence-excess IXT who underwent BLR recession at CUF Cascais Hospital between 2010 and 2020 was analysed. Clinical variables included age, age at surgery, pre- and immediate postoperative deviation angles, preoperative occlusion therapy, orthoptic treatment, binocular function, and initial surgical success (residual deviation <10 prism dioptres with fusion). Bivariate analyses were performed using t-tests or χ

resultsReoperation was required in 11% of cases. Failed initial surgery (adjusted OR = 34.7;

conclusionIn children undergoing BLR for IXT, initial surgical failure and deviation magnitude (pre- and immediate postoperative) are the strongest predictors of reoperation, with age having the modest additional effect. These findings emphasize precise surgical planning and the need for long-term follow-up.

Indexed as

ExotropiaOculomotor MusclesOphthalmologic Surgical ProceduresReoperationChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeVision, BinocularIntermittent exotropiapaediatric strabismusrecurrencereoperationsurgical success

Identifiers

PMID41918225
PMCPMC13045167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.