ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Ocular injuries in padel: findings from a survey on frequency, risk factors, and perceptions toward protective eyewear.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo characterize the proportion of respondents reporting padel-related ocular injury and its perceived long-term consequences, identify independent factors associated with injury reporting, and assess players' acceptance of protective eyewear.
methodsA prospective, cross-sectional, voluntary online survey was distributed nationally via Italian padel websites and social-media forums between April 2024 and March 2025. A total of 583 respondents formed the analytic cohort. The 31-item questionnaire captured demographics, playing habits, ocular injury history, perceived impact on quality of life (QoL), vision (QoV), work, and attitudes toward protective goggles. Responses were limited to one submission per personal email account. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of ocular trauma.
resultsSixty players (10.3%) self-reported at least one ocular injury; 55 (92%) were attributed to ball impact. Among injured participants, 25% described long-lasting reductions in QoL, 15% in QoV, and 8.3% in work performance; 6 players (10%) reported undergoing ocular surgery. Weekly playing frequency emerged as the only independent factor associated with injury reporting: compared with <1 match/week, the odds of injury peaked at 4-6 matches/week (OR 26.85; p < 0.001). Only 56 respondents (9.6%) strongly endorsed protective goggles use.
conclusionAmong respondents to this convenience-based survey, 10.3% reported having sustained ocular trauma, with up to one quarter of injured individuals describing long-lasting sequelae. Acceptance of protective goggles was low. These findings may inform targeted educational initiatives and the development of sport-specific safety recommendations for this rapidly expanding sport.
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.