ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2018
Ologen Implantation versus Conjunctival Autograft Transplantation for Treatment of Pterygium.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Conjunctival reconstruction-State of the art of regenerative treatment forms beyond the limbus].Die Ophthalmologie · 2022Review
- Preliminary results of Preserflo Microshunt versus Preserflo Microshunt and Ologen implantation.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Ologen implantation versus conjunctival autograft transplantation for primary pterygium.
methodsA retrospective case-series analysis. Thirty-one eyes of 29 patients were included in the Ologen group and 42 eyes of 35 patients in the autograft group. The patients were followed up for 1 year and evaluated for slit-lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure, and adverse events. Recurrence rate, complications, and final appearance of the cases were evaluated prospectively.
resultAt 1 year after operation, 2 eyes recurred (6.5%) in the Ologen group and 4 eyes recurred (9.52%) in the autograft group. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups (
conclusionsOlogen transplantation was technically easier, provided short operative time compared with conjunctival autograft transplantation, and preserved healthy conjunctiva with less complication and less recurrence; it may be a new, safe, and effective alternative for improving the short-term success rate of primary surgery.
Identifiers
What 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.