Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21042563›Full record

ReviewMolecular vision2010

Cat-Map: putting cataract on the map.

Alan Shiels, Thomas M Bennett, J Fielding Hejtmancik

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular vision, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 208 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
208citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

208 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 266 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Different-sized incisions for phacoemulsification in age-related cataract.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. CatExperimental eye research · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Candidate Genes for Non-Syndromic Pediatric Cataracts.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

148 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alan ShielsDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA. shiels@vision.wustl.edu
Thomas M Bennett
J Fielding Hejtmancik

Funding

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CENTER VISION RESEARCHP30EY002687 · NEI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Philip Andrew Ruzycki · 1985 to 2026
$18.4M
HUMAN LENS CONNEXIN GENES IN HEREDITARY CATARACTR01EY012284 · NEI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI SHIELS, ALAN · 1998 to 2014
$5.4M
NEI NIH HHS EY012284NEI NIH HHS EY02687NEI NIH HHS P30 EY002687NEI NIH HHS R01 EY012284
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lens opacities, or cataract(s), may be inherited as a classic Mendelian disorder usually with early-onset or, more commonly, acquired with age as a multi-factorial or complex trait. Many genetic forms of cataract have been described in mice and other animal models. Considerable progress has been made in mapping and identifying the genes and mutations responsible for inherited forms of cataract, and genetic determinants of age-related cataract are beginning to be discovered. To provide a convenient and accurate summary of current information focused on the increasing genetic complexity of Mendelian and age-related cataract we have created an online chromosome map and reference database for cataract in humans and mice (Cat-Map).

Indexed as

Chromosome MappingAgingAnimalsCataractHumansInheritance PatternsMice

Identifiers

PMID21042563
PMCPMC2965572
OpenAlexW1604522551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.