Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30308200›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of ophthalmology2018

Factors Associated With Graft Rejection in the Cornea Preservation Time Study.

R Doyle Stulting, Jonathan H Lass, Mark A Terry, Beth Ann Benetz, Nathan J Cohen, Allison R Ayala, Maureen G Maguire, Christopher Croasdale, Yassine J Daoud, Steven P Dunn and 12 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The impact of donor diabetes on corneal transplant immunity.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Machine learning for segmenting cells in corneal endothelium images.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2019
    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

22 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

R Doyle StultingWoolfson Eye Institute, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Jonathan H LassCase Western Reserve University Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and University Hospitals Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Electronic address: jlasscornea@gmail.com.
Mark A TerryDevers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Beth Ann BenetzCase Western Reserve University Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and University Hospitals Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Nathan J CohenJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Allison R AyalaJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Maureen G MaguireCenter for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Christopher CroasdaleSSM Health - Dean Medical Group, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Yassine J DaoudThe Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Steven P DunnMichigan Cornea Consultants, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, USA.
Kenneth M GoinsUniversity of Iowa Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Pankaj C GuptaCase Western Reserve University Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and University Hospitals Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Marian S MacsaiNorthshore University Health System, Glenview, Illinois, USA.
Shahzad I MianKellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Sudeep PramanikMid Atlantic Cornea Consultants, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jennifer Rose-NussbaumerUniversity of California - San Francisco, and Francis I Proctor Foundation, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jonathan C SongUniversity of Southern California Roski Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Walter J StarkThe Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Alan SugarKellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
David D VerdierVerdier Eye Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.
Loretta B Szczotka-FlynnCase Western Reserve University Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and University Hospitals Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Cornea Preservation Time Study Group
Case Western Reserve University · USJaeb Center for Health Research · USJohns Hopkins University · USW.K. Kellogg Foundation · USDean Health Systems · USLegacy Health · USNorthShore University HealthSystem · USUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Iowa · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Southern California · USWoolfson Eye Institute · US

Funding

Effect of Corneal Preservation Time on Long-Term Graft Success (CPTS)U10EY020797 · NEI · JAEB CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. · PI AYALA, ALLISON RENEE · 2011 to 2016
$7.5M
Effect of Corneal Preservation Time on Long-Term Graft Success - Study ChairU10EY020798 · NEI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI LASS, JONATHAN H · 2011 to 2015
$5.6M
NEI NIH HHS U10 EY020797NEI NIH HHS U10 EY020798
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify factors related to graft rejection following Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in the Cornea Preservation Time Study (CPTS).

designCohort study within a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

methodsA total of 1330 eyes of 1090 subjects undergoing DSAEK were randomized to receive a donor cornea with preservation time (PT) of 0-7 days (n = 675) or 8-14 days (n = 655) and followed for 3 years. Central endothelial cell density (ECD) was determined by a central image analysis reading center. Multivariable Cox models adjusted for PT, recipient diagnosis, and surgeon effect were used to identify factors associated with rejection.

resultsCumulative probability of definite graft rejection was 3.6% (99% confidence interval 2.5%-5.3%). Younger recipient age was associated with graft rejection (P < .001; hazard ratio: 0.53 [0.33, 0.83] per decade). PT, donor-recipient sex mismatch, recipient diagnosis, recipient race, graft size, discontinuation of topical corticosteroids and immune-modulators, prior immunizations within 3 months, and prior glaucoma surgery were not associated with rejection (P > .01). Among clear grafts with an ECD measurement at baseline and 3 years (n = 913), endothelial cell loss (ECL) was greater in eyes that experienced a rejection episode (n = 27) than in those that did not (n = 886) (48% vs 38%, P = .03). Twelve of 44 eyes (27%) with definite graft rejection subsequently failed, comprising 15% of the 79 failures in the CPTS.

conclusionsGraft rejection is uncommon after DSAEK and more likely with younger age, in a study cohort mostly > 50 years old. Rejection increases ECL, but it is not a leading cause of DSAEK failure.

Indexed as

Graft RejectionAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCorneal DiseasesDescemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgan PreservationRisk FactorsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID30308200
PMCPMC6258266
OpenAlexW2897262940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.