Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31332110›Full record

Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2019

Microkeratome-assisted ultrathin Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: A randomized trial comparing single-pass versus double-pass technique.

Namrata Sharma, Aarifa Yasmin Hussain, Ritu Nagpal, Anubha Rathi, Prafulla K Maharana, Rajesh Sinha, Tushar Agarwal, Jeewan Singh Titiyal

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Namrata SharmaCornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Services, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Aarifa Yasmin HussainCornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Services, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Ritu NagpalCornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Services, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Anubha RathiCornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Services, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Prafulla K MaharanaCornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Services, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Rajesh SinhaCornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Services, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Tushar AgarwalCornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Services, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Jeewan Singh TitiyalCornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Services, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of two techniques, for preparation of microkeratome-assisted ultrathin grafts for Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Methods: The study involved 20 eyes of 20 patients with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, randomized into two groups. Group 1 eyes underwent microkeratome-assisted DSAEK using the single-pass technique for lenticule preparation, whereas group 2 eyes underwent microkeratome-assisted DSAEK using the double-pass technique. Patients were followed up till 6 months, postoperatively. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at final follow-up was considered as the primary outcome measure, whereas graft thickness (GT) contrast sensitivity and endothelial cell loss were considered as the secondary outcome measures. A P value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: Baseline characteristics of two groups were comparable. The mean central GT was comparable in both groups at 6 months follow-up [group 1: 98 ± 24.46 μm, group 2: 129 ± 31.46 μm (P = 0.18)]. Both groups fared equally in terms of BCVA (P = 0.33). Contrast sensitivity was significantly better in group 1 eyes (P = 0.045). A statistically significant negative correlation was found between postoperative BCVA and postoperative GT (R = -0.728, P = 0.016). The percentage endothelial cell loss was slightly higher in group 2 eyes, although not statistically significant. Two eyes in group 2 experienced complications during lenticule preparation. None of the eye experienced any complication in the postoperative period. Conclusion: Both techniques provided grafts with comparable thickness and endothelial cell loss and were associated with comparable BCVA, at final follow-up visit. The contrast sensitivity was, however, better in eyes receiving grafts prepared with the single-pass technique.

Indexed as

AdultContrast SensitivityCorneal DiseasesDescemet MembraneDescemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyEndothelium, CornealFemaleGraft SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedNomogramsOrgan SizeProspective StudiesRefraction, OcularTissue DonorsDouble-pass techniquemicrokeratomesingle-pass techniqueultrathin Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty

Identifiers

PMID31332110
PMCPMC6677045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.