Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27560033›Full record

ArticleCornea2016

Characterizing Contact Lens-Related Corneal Infiltrates: A Pilot Study.

Meredith E Jansen, Ping Situ, Carolyn G Begley, Danielle Boree, Robin L Chalmers, Kathrine Osborn Lorenz, Tawnya Wilson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cornea, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Meredith E Jansen*Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Jacksonville, FL;†Indiana University School of Optometry, Bloomington, IN; and‡Private Consultant, Atlanta, GA.
Ping Situ
Carolyn G Begley
Danielle Boree
Robin L Chalmers
Kathrine Osborn Lorenz
Tawnya Wilson
Johnson & Johnson (United States) · USIndiana University Bloomington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo document the time course and resolution of contact lens-related corneal infiltrative events (CIEs) comparing slit-lamp images with anterior segment ocular coherence tomography (AS-OCT) images.

methodsSix silicone hydrogel (SiHy) soft contact lens (SCL) wearers presenting with newly diagnosed symptomatic CIEs were monitored with slit-lamp images, detailed drawings, and AS-OCT until the resolution of the CIE. A final follow-up visit was completed 4 weeks after CIE resolution to determine whether scar formation was present. Positive controls were 2 SiHy SCL wearers with established (inactive) corneal scars, and negative controls were 2 SiHy SCL wearers with clear corneas. High- and low-contrast logMAR visual acuities were measured, and subjective symptom questionnaires were completed at all visits.

resultsClinical signs, vision, and symptoms improved in tandem with the resolution of the CIEs as measured by imaging methods. Calibrated measures of infiltrate width from a slit-lamp biomicroscope appear to be similar to calibrated images from AS-OCT.

conclusionsAlthough further studies are needed to develop standardized procedures, AS-OCT can be a useful tool to characterize the development, progression, and resolution of corneal infiltrates as an objective measure of resolution and scar formation.

Indexed as

Contact Lenses, HydrophilicDisease ProgressionFemaleFluorophotometryFollow-Up StudiesHumansKeratitisLeukocytesMalePilot ProjectsProspective StudiesRisk FactorsSlit LampSurveys and QuestionnairesTomography, Optical CoherenceVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID27560033
PMCPMC5094200
OpenAlexW2517680387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.