Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29922034›Full record

ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Awareness and attitudes toward corneal donation: challenges and opportunities.

Andrew M Williams, Kelly W Muir

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Applications of SMILE-extracted lenticules in ophthalmology.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Andrew M WilliamsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Kelly W MuirDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a severe shortage of donor corneas available worldwide for transplantation, with the number of patients in need of transplant greatly exceeding the number of cornea tissues available. Understanding awareness and attitudes about corneal donation worldwide is a critical step toward addressing this shortage. In this review, awareness of corneal donation and reported willingness to donate are summarized from 55 published studies across 13 countries. In general, many more respondents indicated positive attitudes toward eye donation and willingness to donate their eyes than the number of respondents who have pledged their eyes for donation, suggesting an unrealized potential of additional donors. Specifically, of 38,851 respondents across all included studies, 52% endorsed a willingness to donate their eyes after death, yet only 5% reported being a pledged donor. The most commonly cited reason for not being a registered eye donor was lack of awareness about eye donation. The disconnection between the large number of people who expressed willingness to donate and the scarcity of individuals who have pledged their eyes for donation could be addressed through educational media campaigns, collaborations with medical personnel, partnerships with grief counselors and religious leaders, use of social media, and educational sessions with medical students and staff.

Indexed as

attitudescorneal transplantationeye bankeye donationorgan donation

Identifiers

PMID29922034
PMCPMC5995274

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.