Early versus Delayed Timing of Primary Repair after Open-Globe Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TOPIC: The timing of primary repair of open-globe injury is variable in major trauma centers worldwide, and consensus on optimal timing is lacking. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgery is the mainstay of open-globe injury management, and appropriate timing of surgical repair may minimize the risk of potentially blinding complications such as endophthalmitis, thereby optimizing visual outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identifier, CRD42023442972). The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISRCTN registries and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through October 29, 2023. Prospective and retrospective nonrandomized studies of patients with open-globe injury with a minimum of 1 month of follow-up after primary repair were included. Primary outcomes included visual acuity at last follow-up and the proportion of patients with endophthalmitis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: = 70%; P = 0.52). All included studies were retrospective and nonrandomized, demonstrating an overall low certainty of evidence on GRADE assessment. DISCUSSION: Only retrospective data exist around the effect of timing of open-globe repair, resulting in low certainty of the available evidence. However, this review of current evidence, predominantly including penetrating and IOFB injuries, suggests that primary repair performed less than 24 hours after open-globe injury is associated with a reduced endophthalmitis rate compared with longer delays, consistent with delay to primary repair increasing endophthalmitis risk. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".