Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A new classification of ocular surface burns

Open access
DUA, H. S·2001·British Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

Ocular burns constitute true ocular emergencies and both thermal and chemical burns represent potentially blinding ocular injuries. Thermal burns result from accidents associated with firework explosions, steam, boiling water, or molten metal (commonly aluminium). Chemical burns may be caused by either alkaline or acidic agents. Common alkaline agents include ammonium hydroxide used in fertiliser production, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) used for cleaning drains and pipes, and calcium hydroxide found in lime plaster and cement. Alkaline agents are particularly damaging as they have both hydrophilic and lipophilic properties, which allow them to rapidly penetrate cell membranes and enter the anterior chamber. Alkali damage results from interaction of the hydroxyl ions causing saponification of cell membranes and cell death along with disruption of the extracellular matrix. Common acidic agents causing injury include sulphuric acid found in car batteries, sulphurous acid found in some bleaches, and hydrochloric acid used in swimming pools. Acids tend to cause less damage than alkalis as many corneal proteins bind acid and act as a chemical buffer. In addition, coagulated tissue acts as a barrier to further penetration of acid. Acid binds to collagen and causes fibril shrinkage. Historically, it has been recognised that the extent of tissue damage is a prognostic indicator of recovery following ocular surface injury. Recovery of ocular surface burns depends upon the causative agent and the extent of damage to corneal, limbal, and conjunctival tissues at the time of injury. Damage to intraocular structures influences the final visual outcome. Ballen1 first suggested a classification which was later modified by Roper-Hall to provide prognostic guidelines based on the corneal appearance and the extent of limbal ischaemia.2 This classification has become the commonly used benchmark since its introduction in 1965 (Table1). View this table: Table 1 Classification of severity of ocular surface burns by Roper-Hall2 …

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjo.85.11.1379

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
DUA, H. S.
Venue
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-11-01
Volume
85
Issue
11
Pages
1379-1383
ISSN
0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117882176
Cited by
353
References
18
FWCI
3.65
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: A new classification of ocular surface burns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.85.11.1379
The paper
DUA, H. S. (2001). A new classification of ocular surface burns. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.85.11.1379

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.