SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2019
Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating autograft versus allograft cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation in limbal stem cell deficiency.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of clinical research on regenerative medicine for the cornea.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2021Pooled it
- Outcomes of Limbal Stem Cell Transplant: A Meta-analysis.JAMA ophthalmology · 2020Pooled it
- Targeting limbal epithelial stem cells: master conductors of corneal epithelial regeneration from the bench to multilevel theranostics.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Amniotic membrane transplantation: structural and biological properties, tissue preparation, application and clinical indications.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Concise Review: Bioengineering of Limbal Stem Cell Niche.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Hyaluronan supports the limbal stem cell phenotype during ex vivo culture.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022Article
- Cultivated Autologous Limbal Epithelial Cell Transplantation: New Frontier in the Treatment of Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency.American journal of ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Goals and Challenges of Stem Cell-Based Therapy for Corneal Blindness Due to Limbal Deficiency.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Recent Advances in Stem Cell Therapy for Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency: A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2020Review
- Clinical Outcomes From Cultivated Allogenic Stem Cells vs. Oral Mucosa Epithelial Transplants in Total Bilateral Stem Cells Deficiency.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Review
- The Surgical Outcomes of Limbal Allograft Transplantation in Eyes Having Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrently, regenerative medicine has attracted much attention among researchers investigating new methods to treat ocular surface diseases. Based on this new concept, cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation (CLET), whether in the form of autograft or allograft, has emerged as a promising surgical procedure for treating limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD). Given that there is no updated comparison between autograft and allograft CLETs, the present review and meta-analysis aims to compare and determine the efficacy of two different CLET techniques, autologous versus allogeneic, based on a literature review of relevant studies.
methodsA comprehensive search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus, for related articles was performed in March 2018 to obtain relevant articles and to conduct a meta-analysis investigating the success rate of ocular surface regeneration and two-line improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using autograft versus allograft transplantations.
resultsA total of 30 studies, including 1306 eyes from 1288 patients with LSCD, with a sample size ranging from 6 to 200 and follow-up period of 0.6-156 months, were reviewed. Of 1306 eyes, 982 (75.2%) underwent autograft and 324 (24.8%) received allografts from living or deceased donors. Meta-analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between autograft and allograft CLETs in terms of success rate and two-line BCVA improvement. The prospective studies showed a zero difference between the two groups; only two retrospective studies included in the analysis pulled the autografts up to 1.82 and 1.2 times more than allografts in terms of success rate and two-line BCVA improvement, respectively [pooled OR 1.82 (95% CI 0.80-4.11); pooled OR 1.2 (95% CI 0.54-2.65)]. There was no statistically significant evidence of bias in the meta-analysis in terms of success rates and two-line BCVA improvement.
conclusionsThe present analysis revealed no significant differences in success rates or visual improvement between autograft and allograft surgical techniques.
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.