ArticleNature2018
Improving outcomes in congenital cataract.
Article in Nature, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-driven approach for cataract management: towards precise identification and predictive analytics.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Through theGenes · 2024Review
- Nicotinamide improves in vitro lens regeneration in a mouse capsular bag model.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022Article
- Lens regeneration: scientific discoveries and clinical possibilities.Molecular biology reports · 2021Review
- Novel mutation ofAnnals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Two Pathogenic Gene Mutations Identified Associating with Congenital Cataract and Iris Coloboma Respectively in a Chinese Family.Journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Prospects and modalities for the treatment of genetic ocular anomalies.Human genetics · 2019Review
- Regenerating Eye Tissues to Preserve and Restore Vision.Cell stem cell · 2018Review
- Liu et al. reply.Nature · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Identifiers
29620728What 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.