Trial reportJAMA ophthalmology2026
Standardized Lacrimal Sac Massage vs Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Infants: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial.
Trial report in JAMA ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06924723 (Effect of Standardized Lacrimal Sac Massage Compared With Probing for Congenital Lacrimal Duct Obstruction), which is not on this 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.
Effect of Standardized Lacrimal Sac Massage Compared With Probing for Congenital Lacrimal Duct Obstruction: a Non-inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) is a common condition in infants. While observation and surgical probing are commonly used in clinical practice, evidence to guide the choice between these approaches is lacking, and the efficacy of lacrimal sac massage remains controversial. Objective: To assess whether lacrimal sac massage is noninferior to lacrimal duct probing for treating CNLDO in infants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This noninferiority randomized clinical trial took place at an outpatient clinic in Guangzhou, China, from April to September 2025 and included 160 infants younger than 1 year with CNLDO, presenting with epiphora or discharge in 1 or both eyes since birth. Children with bilateral eye disease were only analyzed for the right eye. Patients were excluded if they had previously undergone surgery for CNLDO or had another systemic disease or ocular infection. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive lacrimal duct probing in the consultation room (n = 80) or standardized, regular lacrimal sac massage performed by parents (n = 80). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the resolution rate at 3 months, defined as complete or substantial resolution of epiphora, alongside the complete resolution of purulent discharge. The prespecified noninferiority margin was -10 percentage points. Results: The mean (SD) age of the participants was 6.2 (2.5) months, and 98 (61.3%) were male. Resolution occurred in 69 of 80 participants (86.2%) in the massage group compared with 67 of 80 (83.7%) in the probe group (difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.78 to 13.76). No serious complications occurred. The mean (SD) symptom resolution time was 1.1 (0.5) weeks in the probe group and 3.8 (2.8) weeks in the massage group (difference, 2.7 weeks; 95% CI, 1.96 to 3.38; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: For infants younger than 1 year with CNLDO, lacrimal sac massage for 3 months was noninferior to lacrimal duct probing in efficacy, with no serious complications in either group. These findings support lacrimal sac massage as an alternative to surgical probing for CNLDO in infants younger than 1 year similar to those enrolled in this trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06924723.
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.