Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31822860›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2020

Animal models of scarring control.

David L Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

David L WilliamsDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK. dlw33@cam.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Filtration surgery has, for the past 50 years been key in the treatment of glaucoma yet a significant issue in the long-term success of such surgery is fibrosis limiting aqueous drainage. Numerous methods have been used to reduce such scarring after filtration surgery and animal models have been important in the development of such techniques. First animal models have been central in understanding molecular and cellular changes occurring in fibrosis and thus which pathways might be valuable therapeutic. Secondly animal models have been critical in determining which of these therapies is likely to be most worthwhile. Having said that animals differ substantially from humans in the anatomy of their aqueous drainage pathways and in the mechanisms of fibrotic change. Rodents and lagomorphs vary more markedly from humans than do primates at an anatomic, biochemical and physiological level, and thus the latter might seem more appropriate as models for antifibrotic techniques. However the welfare implications, and thus ethical issues, in using primates are more concerning than with rodents or rabbits and efforts to refine, reduce and replace living animals in such model systems are crucially important. One problem is that the animal models normally involve healthy eyes, not ones with glaucoma. In veterinary ophthalmology we see large numbers of dogs with glaucoma, many of which have filtration implants placed. Potentially these could be a valuable animal model where benefits of antifibrotic treatment could benefit the animals involved and the research seeking to optimise such treatments.

Indexed as

Filtering SurgeryGlaucomaAnimalsCicatrixDisease Models, AnimalDogsFibrosisRabbits

Identifiers

PMID31822860
PMCPMC7002449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.