ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in treating chronic dacryocystitis.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) and traditional external DCR in patients with chronic dacryocystitis. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical records of patients with chronic dacryocystitis treated at our hospital from November 2022 to November 2025. Patients were retrospectively categorized according to the surgical procedure received: the research group underwent endoscopic endonasal DCR, whereas the control group underwent traditional external DCR. Clinical data from all patients were collected and analyzed. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in the recorded baseline characteristics between the two groups ( Conclusion: Within the 2-month postoperative follow-up, unadjusted comparisons showed that endoscopic endonasal DCR was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospitalization, a lower overall incidence of postoperative adverse events, and higher self-reported patient satisfaction than traditional external DCR. No statistically significant between-group differences were detected in short-term anatomical or functional success. Larger prospective studies with adjustment for potential confounders and longer follow-up are required to confirm these findings.
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.