ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparative evaluation of three trauma scoring systems: OTS, POTS, and MPOTS for predicting early visual outcomes in pediatric open-globe injuries.
Article in BMC 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
objectiveTo evaluate and directly compare the prognostic performance of three trauma scoring systems-Ocular Trauma Score (OTS), Pediatric Ocular Trauma Score (POTS), and Modified Pediatric Ocular Trauma Score (MPOTS)-in predicting visual outcomes in pediatric patients with open-globe injuries (OGI).
methodsThis retrospective cohort included 110 pediatric patients (≤ 18 years) who underwent surgical repair for OGI between January 2018 and December 2024. Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were extracted from standardized medical records. Prognostic factors for final visual acuity (VA) were analyzed, and OTS, POTS, and MPOTS were calculated for each patient. Visual outcomes were classified as favorable (VA > 20/200) or poor (VA ≤ 20/200). Predictive performance was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
resultsThe mean age was 7.85 ± 4.73 years, and the mean follow-up was 20.36 ± 16.70 months. Presenting VA, injury zone, and associated ocular pathologies (hyphema, traumatic cataract, vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, choroidal involvement, vitreous prolapse, and iris prolapse) were significant predictors of poor outcomes (all p < 0.05), whereas age, sex, and time to surgery were not. Mean VA improved significantly from baseline (1.40 ± 0.92 logMAR) to final follow-up (0.68 ± 1.04 logMAR; p < 0.001). All three trauma scores correlated strongly with final VA, with OTS (r = - 0.822) and POTS (r = - 0.807) outperforming MPOTS (r = - 0.690). ROC analysis confirmed excellent discriminative ability for all three models, with the highest areas under the curve (AUC) observed for POTS (0.983), followed by OTS (0.974) and MPOTS (0.948).
conclusionsOTS, POTS, and MPOTS are valuable tools for predicting visual outcomes in pediatric OGI. While POTS demonstrated the best discriminative performance in our cohort, OTS remained highly reliable, and MPOTS provided a simpler framework but with slightly reduced accuracy. OTS should continue to serve as a reference standard, with pediatric-specific scores offering complementary value in challenging clinical scenarios.
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.