Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31598518›Full record

ReviewMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2019

Diagnosis and Management of Pseudoguttata: A Literature Review.

Majid Moshirfar, Harry Y Liu, Uma Vaidyanathan, Anisha N Somani, Grant C Hopping, James R Barnes, Madeline B Heiland, David B Rosen, Mahsaw N Motlagh, Phillip C Hoopes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Diseases of the corneal endothelium.Experimental eye research · 2021
    Review
  3. Review
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

10 authors.

Majid MoshirfarJohn A. Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Harry Y LiuHealth Science Center, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA.
Uma VaidyanathanHealth Science Center, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA.
Anisha N SomaniSchool of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Grant C HoppingCollege of Medicine-Phoenix, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
James R BarnesCollege of Medicine-Phoenix, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Madeline B HeilandCollege of Medicine-Phoenix, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
David B RosenCollege of Medicine-Phoenix, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Mahsaw N MotlaghCollege of Medicine-Tucson, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Phillip C HoopesHoopes Durrie Rivera Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Corneal pseudoguttata (PG), also known as pseudoguttae or secondary guttata, is a transient, reversible endothelial edema commonly associated with anterior segment pathology. While considered rare, PG presents on slit-lamp examination more commonly than originally thought. We have clinically observed PG after refractive surgeries, in association with infectious keratitis, and following medication use. PG presents as dark lesions on slit-lamp exam with specular illumination, similar to primary corneal guttata. PG is distinct from guttata because PG resolves over time and does not involve Descemet's membrane. Other ocular findings that may be confused with guttata include endothelial blebs (EB) and endothelial denudation (ED). EB are possibly a type of PG that present after contact lens use or hypoxia. ED is a distinct entity that is characterized by loss of endothelial cells without involvement of Descemet's membrane. Confocal microscopy may be useful in differentiating these four endothelial lesions, with differences in border definition and the presence of hyperreflective areas two main distinctions. PG presents as a hyporeflective, elevated shape without clear borders on confocal microscopy. PG, EB, and ED can resolve with time without the need for surgical intervention, unlike corneal guttata. Treatment of the underlying condition will lead to resolution of both PG and EB.

Indexed as

Endothelial BlebEndothelial Cell EdemaEndothelial DegenerationEndothelial DenudationEndothelial DystrophyEndotheliitisFuchs' Endothelial DystrophyGuttaeGuttataPseudoguttaePseudoguttataSecondary GuttaeSecondary Guttata

Identifiers

PMID31598518
PMCPMC6778462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.