ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Prism Success in Patients with Diplopia and Retinal Pathology.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of prisms in treating binocular diplopia in patients with retinal pathologies and to evaluate factors associated with treatment success. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients ≥18 years with binocular diplopia and retinal pathology presenting between 2012-2022. Patients prescribed prisms with ≥1 follow-up were included. Subjective prism prescriptions were compared to measured deviations. Associations between treatment success and clinical factors were analyzed. Results: Seventy patients (mean age 73.5 ± 8.6 years) were included, most with epiretinal membranes (54.3%) or prior retinal detachment (14.3%). Diplopia was eliminated in 65.7% of patients with prisms, though 43.5% of these patients required at least 1 prism change. For horizontal deviations, prescribed prisms were lower than measured deviations at both distance (Mean = 3.39 ± 4.23 PD vs. 5.33 ± 6.03 PD, p <0.001) and near (Mean =1.99 ± 2.35 PD vs. 4.30 ± 6.05 PD, p =0.005). Vertical prism prescriptions were similar to measured deviations at distance (Mean = 2.34 ± 2.96 PD vs. 2.04 ± 2.37 PD, p =0.128), but higher at near (Mean = 1.99 ± 2.35 PD vs. 1.26 ± 2.47 PD, p =0.006). No significant associations were found between treatment success and type of retinal pathology, visual acuity, age, or prism type (Fresnel or ground-in) (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: Prisms effectively eliminated diplopia in most patients, though adjustments were frequently necessary. Discrepancies between measured and subjectively preferred prism magnitudes highlight the importance of careful, individualized prism trials.
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.