Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27531295›Full record

ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2016

Goblet cell response after photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis.

Denise S Ryan, Kraig S Bower, Rose K Sia, Marie A Shatos, Robin S Howard, Michael J Mines, Richard D Stutzman, Darlene A Dartt

Abstract readClinical Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Conjunctival MUC5AC+ goblet cell index: relationship with corneal nerves and dry eye.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
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

8 authors.

Denise S RyanFrom the Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center (Ryan, Sia), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the Wilmer Eye Institute (Bower), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Ophthalmology Service (Stutzman) and the Biostatistics Section (Howard), Department of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, the Schepens Eye Research Institute (Shatos, Dartt), Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Ophthalmology Service (Mines), Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA. Electronic address: denise.s.ryan.ctr@mail.mil.
Kraig S BowerFrom the Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center (Ryan, Sia), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the Wilmer Eye Institute (Bower), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Ophthalmology Service (Stutzman) and the Biostatistics Section (Howard), Department of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, the Schepens Eye Research Institute (Shatos, Dartt), Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Ophthalmology Service (Mines), Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
Rose K SiaFrom the Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center (Ryan, Sia), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the Wilmer Eye Institute (Bower), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Ophthalmology Service (Stutzman) and the Biostatistics Section (Howard), Department of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, the Schepens Eye Research Institute (Shatos, Dartt), Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Ophthalmology Service (Mines), Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
Marie A ShatosFrom the Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center (Ryan, Sia), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the Wilmer Eye Institute (Bower), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Ophthalmology Service (Stutzman) and the Biostatistics Section (Howard), Department of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, the Schepens Eye Research Institute (Shatos, Dartt), Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Ophthalmology Service (Mines), Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
Robin S HowardFrom the Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center (Ryan, Sia), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the Wilmer Eye Institute (Bower), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Ophthalmology Service (Stutzman) and the Biostatistics Section (Howard), Department of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, the Schepens Eye Research Institute (Shatos, Dartt), Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Ophthalmology Service (Mines), Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
Michael J MinesFrom the Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center (Ryan, Sia), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the Wilmer Eye Institute (Bower), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Ophthalmology Service (Stutzman) and the Biostatistics Section (Howard), Department of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, the Schepens Eye Research Institute (Shatos, Dartt), Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Ophthalmology Service (Mines), Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
Richard D StutzmanFrom the Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center (Ryan, Sia), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the Wilmer Eye Institute (Bower), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Ophthalmology Service (Stutzman) and the Biostatistics Section (Howard), Department of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, the Schepens Eye Research Institute (Shatos, Dartt), Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Ophthalmology Service (Mines), Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
Darlene A DarttFrom the Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center (Ryan, Sia), Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the Wilmer Eye Institute (Bower), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the Ophthalmology Service (Stutzman) and the Biostatistics Section (Howard), Department of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, the Schepens Eye Research Institute (Shatos, Dartt), Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Ophthalmology Service (Mines), Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.

Funding

Conjunctival Goblet Cell Mucin Secretion in Inflammation and Its ResolutionR01EY019470 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI DARTT, DARLENE A · 2009 to 2023
$7.4M
CONTROL OF CONJUNCTIVAL GOBLET CELL MUCOUS PRODUCTIONR01EY009057 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI DARTT, DARLENE A · 1991 to 2009
$3.2M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY009057NEI NIH HHS R01 EY019470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine whether patients without dry eye preoperatively have an altered conjunctival goblet cell density and mucin secretion postoperatively and to explore what factors affect changes in goblet cell density and mucin secretion.

settingThe former Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.

designProspective nonrandomized clinical study.

methodsImpression cytology was used to determine conjunctival goblet cell density before and 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). The McMonnies questionnaire, Schirmer test, tear breakup time, corneal sensitivity, rose bengal staining, and computerized videokeratoscopy were also performed to assess tear-film and ocular-surface health.

resultsThe ratio of goblet cell to total cells changed postoperatively from baseline in both groups (P < .001). The most significant change was a median 29% decrease 1 month postoperatively. However, there were no significant differences between groups over time (P = .772). The ratio of filled goblet cell to total goblet cell did not change significantly over the same time period (P = .128), and there were no significant differences between the PRK group and the LASIK group over time (P = .282).

conclusionsPatients without apparent dry eye had an altered conjunctival goblet cell population after PRK or LASIK. The conjunctival goblet cell population tended to decrease in the early postoperative period after either surgery and was most affected by preoperative goblet cell density. The changes in the tear film and ocular surface did not seem to affect goblet cell mucin secretion after either procedure. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Indexed as

Keratomileusis, Laser In SituPhotorefractive KeratectomyCorneaDry Eye SyndromesGoblet CellsHumansLasers, ExcimerMyopiaProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID27531295
PMCPMC5702538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.