The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The psychosocial benefits of corrective surgery for adults with strabismus
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Few papers have addressed the psychological impact of strabismus in adults, with none comparing preoperative and postoperative data using standardised questionnaires relating surgical results and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: 46 participants were seen at their 6 week preoperative and 3 month postoperative appointments. Standardised measures of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), social anxiety (Derriford Appearance Scale), and quality of life (WHOQoLBref) were completed. RESULTS: Preoperatively, levels of depression were comparable to relevant population norms; however, levels of general anxiety were slightly raised and levels of social anxiety and social avoidance were significantly poorer than population norms. Surgery resulted in significant improvements in psychosocial adjustment with improvements on all study variables for the participant group as a whole. The non-diplopic group made more significant gains than the diplopic group. Approximately one third of study measures were significantly correlated with the objective measure of eye misalignment preoperatively dropping to only one variable postoperatively. Calculations involving the subjective measure of eye misalignment and study variables showed the opposite pattern with five variables achieving significance postoperatively. There were no clear sex or age effects apparent in the data. CONCLUSION: Strabismus surgery offers significant improvements to psychological and physical functioning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Depression and quality of life in older persons: A review
Sivertsen, H., Bjørkløf, G. H., Engedal, K., Selbæk, G., & Helvik, A.-S. (2015) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · doi:10.1159/000437299 · Cited by 14,152
Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment
THE WHOQOL GROUP (1998) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291798006667 · Cited by 7,933
The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974) · Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/bs.3830190102 · Cited by 4,604
Normative data for the HADS from a large non-clinical sample
Crawford, J. R., Henry, J. D., Crombie, C., & Taylor, E. P. (2001) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466501163904 · Cited by 815
Carr, T., Moss, T., & Harris, D. (2005) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1348/135910705x27613 · Cited by 248
Moss, T. P. (2005) · Body Image · doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.03.004 · Cited by 165
Living with vitiligo: Dealing with difference
Thompson, A. R., Kent, G., & Smith, J. A. (2002) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1348/135910702169457 · Cited by 141
Cited by
Prevalence of Amblyopia and Strabismus in African American and Hispanic Children Ages 6 to 72 Months
(2008) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.08.001 · Cited by 380
Metadata
- Authors
- Jackson, S., Harrad, R. A., Morris, M., & Rumsey, N.
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-07-01
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 883-888
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1986958914
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 3.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The psychosocial benefits of corrective surgery for adults with strabismus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.2005.089516
- The paper
- Jackson, S., Harrad, R. A., Morris, M., & Rumsey, N. (2006). The psychosocial benefits of corrective surgery for adults with strabismus. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.089516
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.