Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28390052›Full record

ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2017

A Review of Presbyopia Treatment with Corneal Inlays.

M Amir Moarefi, Shamik Bafna, William Wiley

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Vision through Healthy Aging Eyes.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Visual Prognosis after Explantation of a Corneal Shape-Changing Hydrogel Inlay in Presbyopic Eyes.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M Amir MoarefiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Case Western Reserve-University Hospitals, Cleveland, OH, USA. amir.moarefimd@gmail.com.
Shamik BafnaCleveland Eye Clinic, Brecksville, OH, USA.
William WileyCleveland Eye Clinic, Brecksville, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevalence of presbyopia continues to increase every year. The therapeutic approaches to presbyopia cover the spectrum of non-surgical to surgical techniques. With recent advances in biocompatible materials, corneal inlays make a strong case for their place within the treatment spectrum. This article takes a closer look at three of the current corneal inlay models: KAMRA, Raindrop, and Presbia Flexivue Microlens. Each design approach and mode of action is described with data from key clinical trials. Furthermore, the ability to choose the most suitable corneal inlay is presented by comparing each model and identifying their similarities and differences. The article then concludes by touching on the future of corneal inlays, looking at associated conditions and complications and how to manage them, as well as an expert's personal point of view of enhanced ideas for continuing the growth and success of corneal inlays in the market.

Indexed as

Corneal inlayKAMRAPresbia MicrovuePresbyopiaRaindrop

Identifiers

PMID28390052
PMCPMC5449304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.