ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2026
Refractive and Visual Outcomes in Unilateral Duane Retraction Syndrome: Influence of Ocular Motility.
Article in Turkish journal of 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the refractive profiles and clinical characteristics of affected and fellow eyes in unilateral Duane retraction syndrome (DRS), emphasize subtype-related variations, and assess the impact of motility restriction and ocular findings on refractive status. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 191 patients with unilateral DRS, comprising type I (n=162), type II (n=7), and type III (n=22). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), cycloplegic autorefraction, astigmatism classification, and ocular alignment/motility findings were analyzed across DRS subtypes. Results: The mean age at examination was 6.67±7.13 years, and 62.3% of the patients were female. Amblyopia was observed in 23.0% of patients, anisometropia in 18.6%, and abnormal head posture in 52.7% of patients. Esotropia (42.0%) was more prevalent than exotropia (11.7%), and the majority of patients (61.4%) exhibited grade 4 horizontal limitation. Compared with fellow eyes, DRS eyes exhibited a substantially lower BCVA (p<0.001), higher spherical power (p=0.025), and greater cylindrical power (p<0.001). In both DRS (60.7%) and non-DRS (72.3%) eyes, the predominant pattern was with-the-rule astigmatism. There were no discernible variations in astigmatism subtypes among motility limitation grades or DRS subtypes. The cylindrical refractive error was independently associated with abnormal head posture (p=0.007) and horizontal deviation type (p=0.029) according to multiple regression analysis. Conclusion: Unilateral DRS is characterized by diminished visual function and increased refractive error, with cylindrical outcomes affected by head posture and type of deviation. The findings highlight the importance of integrating motility parameters into refractive evaluation and surgical planning in DRS.
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.