ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Visual and refractive pattern in patients with comitant large angle esotropia.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate visual acuity, refractive error, and angle of deviation in patients with large-angle esotropia and to investigate age related differences in the magnitude of deviation.
methodIn this retrospective study, medical records of 370 patients diagnosed with large-angle esotropia (horizontal deviation ≥ 50 prism diopters (Δ)) between 4 and 81 years were reviewed. Data collected included demographic information, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), cycloplegic refractive error, and angle of deviation in primary position. Amblyopia severity was categorized as mild, moderate, or severe, and its etiology classified based on clinical findings.
resultsThe mean age of patients was 28.9 ± 17.77 years, and 61.4% were male. The mean horizontal angle of deviation at distance was 72.2 ± 14.08Δ. The mean CDVA was 0.54 ± 0.55 logMAR in the strabismic eye and 0.14 ± 0.22 logMAR in the nonstrabismic eye (p < 0.001). The mean spherical equivalent (SE) was not significantly different between the strabismic (-0.31 ± 3.77 diopter (D)) and non-strabismic eye (-0.29 ± 3.46 D) (p = 0.9). Strabismic amblyopia was the most common etiology (62%), followed by mixed anisohyperopic + strabismic (17.6%), anisoastigmatic + strabismic (13.4%) and anisomyopic + strabismic amblyopia (7%). Finally, the magnitude of deviation was greater in the middle aged to old population (41 to 81 years) (79.72 ± 16.9 Δ) than in children (4-18 years) (67.72 ± 10.99 Δ) (p < 0.001).
conclusionLarge-angle esotropia is associated with significant visual impairments, including strabismic amblyopia, as the predominant factor, emphasizing the need for early diagnosis and individualized and timely intervention to prevent the long-term visual deficits.
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.