ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Defining Success in Ptosis Surgery: Outcome Heterogeneity and Priorities for Standardization.
Review in Journal of clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ptosis surgery aims to restore eyelid position, visual function, facial expression, and, in children, visual development. Yet reported success rates reflect how success is defined as much as what surgery achieves. Studies use different eyelid-height thresholds, symmetry criteria, composite definitions, and follow-up intervals, limiting comparison across procedures and patient populations. This narrative review examines outcome assessment after ptosis surgery across six domains: anatomical, functional, aesthetic, patient-reported, safety, and durability outcomes. Margin reflex distance 1 remains the dominant anatomical endpoint, but accepted postoperative values vary and are inconsistently combined with eyelid contour, symmetry, and crease position. Within the same cohort, adding contour and symmetry requirements can reduce the reported success rate. Dynamic function, frontalis compensation, lagophthalmos, and dry eye are also inconsistently defined or omitted, despite their clinical relevance and procedure-specific effects. Anatomical correction does not reliably predict patient-perceived benefit, and no validated ptosis-specific patient-reported outcome measure exists. In children, success depends on visual development, amblyopia prevention, and ocular surface safety rather than eyelid height alone. Most studies assess outcomes within six months, limiting evaluation of recurrence and durability. A core outcome set could improve comparability without imposing a single definition of success across all ptosis subtypes, procedures, and patient populations.
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.