Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30159097›Full record

ArticleThe open ophthalmology journal2018

Development of

Udo Bock, Von Deylen D, Jochner M, Doerr M, Stäbler C, Reichl S

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The open ophthalmology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Udo BockBock Project Management, Tawern, Germany.
Von Deylen DTechnische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Institut für Pharmazeutische Technologie, Braunschweig, Germany.
Jochner MTechnische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Institut für Pharmazeutische Technologie, Braunschweig, Germany.
Doerr MBayer Vital GmbH, Scientific Affairs Consumer Health, Leverkusen, Germany.
Stäbler CBayer Vital GmbH, Scientific Affairs Consumer Health, Leverkusen, Germany.
Reichl STechnische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Institut für Pharmazeutische Technologie, Braunschweig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop

methodsTwo different, complementary corneal binding set-ups were developed. In a dynamic

resultsBinding was more pronounced in dynamic HCE-T model. Three of the four eye drops demonstrated sigmoidal elution of sodium hyaluronate, suggesting pronounced binding. One solution eluted distinctly faster, likewise the buffer control. The static method produced a similar ranking but at lower levels. When eye drops in which phosphate buffer was replaced by citrate buffer (

conclusionDynamic and static models performed on different corneal sources were used to determine sodium hyaluronate binding kinetics in solutions under physiological conditions. These methodologies resulted in a ranking of the capacity of sodium hyaluronate to bind

Indexed as

BindingCorneaEye dropsHCE-TResidence TimeSodium Hyaluronate

Identifiers

PMID30159097
PMCPMC6080064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.