ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Effectiveness of a locally made eye protector for neonates treated with phototherapy at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital (QECH), Malawi: a bench study.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe highest incidence of severe neonatal jaundice occurs in Africa at 667.8 per 10,000 live births. At the Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital (QECH), approximately 75% of neonates have clinical jaundice, with up to 15% requiring treatment. While phototherapy is the standard treatment, the intense blue light poses the risk of retinal damage, which has led to the routine practice of eye protection for neonates receiving this therapy. Nonetheless, QECH, like other low-resource settings, lacks standard eye shields, forcing staff to improvise with different materials to shield the neonate's eyes. Whether these improvised methods are effective in that function is unknown, however. This study aims to develop a reusable eye shield and evaluate the effectiveness of the various eye protectors used for neonates receiving phototherapy at QECH.
methodsIn this bench study, improvised eye shields used between May and December 2023 were collected and compared to the newly developed eye shield using a gold-standard material. Twenty samples from each type of eye shield were measured using a light metre placed immediately beneath the material to measure the intensity of light irradiance at 10 cm, 15 cm, 25 cm, and 35 cm from the light source. Data were analysed using non-parametric statistical methods.
resultsOwing to the lack of standard eye care, nurses at QECH improvised eye protection for neonates using makeshift materials such as folded gauze, plaster, and surgical face masks. Among these, surgical masks were the least protective, with an average light irradiance of 12.78 µW/cm²/nm (95% CI 12.00-13.56) at the farthest distance. The shielding capacity of gauze and plaster materials was dependent on the thickness of the gauze used, which was determined by the available resources in the ward. The most protective gauze-based shields had an irradiance of 2.0 µW/cm²/nm, with an overall average of 5.96 µW/cm²/nm (95% CI 4.66-7.26). In comparison, the reusable cotton shield and the reference eye shield had no detectable light across all distances, registering a zero µW/cm²/nm light irradiance.
conclusionFor settings like QECH, where resources are limited and standard eye protection is unavailable for neonates undergoing phototherapy, the reusable cotton eye shield presents a viable alternative to improvised materials.
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.