ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Analysis of the application effect of an automated eye position fixation training device in patients undergoing pterygium surgery: a two-year follow-up randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effects of an automated eye position fixation training device (AEPFTD) on intraoperative cooperation, surgical efficiency, complications, and recurrence rates in patients undergoing pterygium surgery. Methods: In this single-center, double-blinded, prospective randomized controlled trial, 114 patients scheduled for unilateral primary pterygium surgery participated. Participants were randomly assigned to receive preoperative training using either the AEPFTD (experimental group, EG) or conventional manual training (control group, CG). We assessed primary outcomes of intraoperative cooperation in eye position, total operative time, and sustained maintenance of eye position. For secondary outcomes, we monitored recurrence rates at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery, as well as specific intraoperative complications, including conjunctival suture loosening, corneal abrasion, and conjunctival tear. We analyzed outcomes with complete data using standard between-group statistical tests. For the recurrence, we also performed a per-protocol analysis and multiple imputation to handle missing follow-up data. Results: The EG had a significantly shorter total operative time than the CG (44.01 ± 4.96 min vs. 46.41 ± 4.73 min, Conclusion: Compared with conventional manual training, the AEPFTD reduced operative time without significant differences in intraoperative cooperation, complications, or recurrence.
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.