ArticleEye (London, England)2017
In vivo confocal microscopy of toxic keratopathy.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of preservative-free versus preserved timolol eye drops in glaucoma: A randomized crossover study.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2026Trial
- Acute Central Toxic Keratopathy Induced by Exposure to Chinese Herbal Medicine Fluid for Verruca Plana: A Case Report.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2025Article
- In vivo confocal microscopy findings about ocular surface recovery in patients following pterygium excision combined with conjunctival autograft.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Improvement of corneal epithelial damage after switching from the concomitant use of brinzolamide and brimonidine to a brinzolamide/brimonidine fixed-dose combination.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Time-dependent in situ structural and cellular aberrations in rabbit cornea in vivo after mustard gas exposure.Experimental eye research · 2022Article
- Alterations in corneal nerves in different subtypes of dry eye disease: An in vivo confocal microscopy study.The ocular surface · 2021Article
- Characteristics of Toxic Keratopathy, an In Vivo Confocal Microscopy Study.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeTo explore the morphological characteristics of toxic keratopathy (TK), which clinically presented as superficial punctate keratopathy (SPK), with the application of in vivo laser-scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM), and evaluate its potential in the early diagnosis of TK.Patients and methodsThis was a cross-sectional study involving 16 patients with TK and 16 patients with dry eye (DE), demonstrating SPK under slit-lamp observation, and 10 normal eyes were enrolled in the study. All participants underwent history interviews, fluorescein staining, tear film break-up time (BUT) tests, Schirmer tests, and in vivo LSCM.ResultsThe area grading of corneal fluorescein punctate staining was higher in the TK group than the DE group. Measured by in vivo LSCM, superficial epithelial cell density was lower in the TK group than that of DE group. The sub-basal nerve presented lower density and tortuosity in the TK group than the DE group. Most notably, deposits with a snow-like appearance were observed in the epithelium in 12/16 (75.0%) of the TK cases, but none in the DE group (P<0.05).ConclusionThe SPK in TK patients was characterized by more widespread punctate staining, a lower density of superficial epithelial cells and sub-basal nerves, and a typical snow-like pattern of deposits in the epithelium by LSCM. These features might facilitate early diagnosis of TK from other disorders manifested as SPK.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.