Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30101206›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology case reports2018

Simple limbal epithelial transplantation for recurrent pterygium: A case series.

Zale Mednick, Tanguy Boutin, Adi Einan-Lifshitz, Nir Sorkin, Allan Slomovic

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of ophthalmology case reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Recurrent Pterygium: A Review.Journal of current ophthalmology
    Review
  10. Pterygium: Surgical Techniques and Choices.Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zale MednickUniversity of Toronto, Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, Canada.
Tanguy BoutinUniversity of Toronto, Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, Canada.
Adi Einan-LifshitzUniversity of Toronto, Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, Canada.
Nir SorkinUniversity of Toronto, Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, Canada.
Allan SlomovicUniversity of Toronto, Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, Canada.
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePterygium recurrence is a common complication of pterygium removal. Multiple surgical and medical approaches have been utilized to reduce recurrence rates. The present case series proposes a novel way to treat recurrent pterygia, by using the simple limbal epithelial transplantation (SLET) technique. OBSERVATIONS: The cases of four patients who presented with recurrent pterygium were reviewed. In all four of the cases reported, the SLET procedure went without complication. There were no significant recurrences at each of the patient's most recent follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: This is the first report of SLET being used as a treatment modality for recurrent pterygium. Further studies are required to more reliably demonstrate the utility of the procedure in this clinical circumstance, but our results are encouraging that in select patients, this may be a viable option in treating aggressive recurrent pterygia.

Indexed as

ConjunctivaCorneaRecurrent pterygiumSimple limbal epithelial transplantation (SLET)Stem cells

Identifiers

PMID30101206
PMCPMC6083897
OpenAlexW2884242516

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.