ArticleCornea2019
Comparison of Donor Cornea Endothelial Cell Density Determined by Eye Banks and by a Central Reading Center in the Cornea Preservation Time Study.
Article in Cornea, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automatic Determination of Endothelial Cell Density From Donor Cornea Endothelial Cell Images.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Assessment of performance and safety of Corneal Chamber hypothermic storage medium and PSS-L corneal rinsing solution in human and porcine corneas.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Induction of Corneal Epithelial Differentiation of Induced Pluripotent and Orbital Fat-Derived Stem Cells Seeded on Decellularized Human Corneas.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2022Article
- A standardized methodology for longitudinal assessment of corneal endothelial morphometry in eye banked corneas.Journal of biological methods · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate agreement between eye banks (EBs) and a reading center on endothelial cell density (ECD) determinations in the Cornea Preservation Time Study.
methodsThe Cornea Image Analysis Reading Center (CIARC) performed variable frame image analysis on EB-obtained-preoperative central endothelial images (after lamellar dissection for Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty by the EBs or before shipping, if surgeon prepared) to determine ECD. The EBs performed their usual method of ECD determination. The CIARC and EBs also provided ECD determinations from screening central endothelial images taken by the EBs during donor evaluation. Two independent masked CIARC readers determined ECD with measurements averaged.
resultsThe mean preoperative ECD was 15 cells/mm greater by the EBs than by CIARC (N = 1286, P < 0.001) with 95% limits of agreement of (-644, 675 cells/mm). The limits of agreement in preoperative ECD were wider in the After-Lamellar-Dissection Group (-687, 683 cells/mm) than in the Before Shipping Group [(-505, 633 cells/mm); P = 0.03]. The EBs-determined preoperative ECD was within 10% of the CIARC-determined ECD for 886 (69%) image sets, with 236 (18%) higher by >10% and 164 (13%) lower by >10%. Excellent agreement appeared between the EBs and CIARC when 100-300 cells could be analyzed in contrast to <100 cells (SD = 308 cells/mm vs. SD = 603 cells/mm; P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe mean ECD by the EBs and CIARC were similar, but there was considerable variability between determinations for individual corneas. Agreement improved between the 2 measurements when more than 100 cells were able to be analyzed.
Indexed as
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.