Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31939923›Full record

Trial reportCornea2020

Corneal Light Scatter After Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in Descemet Endothelial Thickness Comparison Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Kristin E Hirabayashi, Winston Chamberlain, Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer, Ariana Austin, Laurel Stell, Charles C Lin

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cornea, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kristin E HirabayashiByers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Winston ChamberlainCasey Eye Institute, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR.
Jennifer Rose-NussbaumerFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Ariana AustinFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Laurel StellDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Charles C LinByers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Stanford University · USOregon Health & Science University · USSan Francisco Foundation · USSmith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Proteomics CoreP30EY010572 · NEI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI John Peter Campbell · 1995 to 2026
$19.4M
Stanford Vision Research CoreP30EY026877 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Jeffrey L Goldberg · 2017 to 2026
$8.0M
Predictions of Response to Treatment in Fungal KeratitisK23EY025025 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ROSE-NUSSBAUMER, JENNIFER · 2015 to 2019
$1.2M
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY025025NEI NIH HHS P30 EY010572NEI NIH HHS P30 EY026877
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the degree of corneal light scatter as measured by densitometry in ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) and Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) in the Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial.

methodsThis was a prespecified secondary analysis of the Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial, which was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Subjects with isolated endothelial dysfunction were enrolled and were randomized to either UT-DSAEK or DMEK. Corneal opacity was quantitatively measured by Pentacam densitometry (OCULUS) at 3, 6, and 12 months.

resultsFifty eyes of 38 patients were enrolled at the Casey Eye Institute at Oregon Health & Science University and the Byers Eye Institute at Stanford University. Corneal densitometry for the anterior and posterior layers improved in both UT-DSAEK and DMEK after surgery. The decrease was more pronounced in the posterior layer for both groups. However, there was no difference in the degree of corneal light scatter between UT-DSAEK and DMEK at postoperative month 12, and no difference in change in densitometry was observed between the 2 arms from baseline to month 12.

conclusionsBoth UT-DSAEK and DMEK experience an improvement in the degree of corneal light scatter after surgery. However, there was no difference in densitometry between the 2 groups at month 12. Therefore, other factors such as higher order aberrations in the posterior cornea rather than stromal-stromal interface haze mediate the superior visual outcomes in DMEK compared with UT-DSAEK.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityAgedAged, 80 and overCell CountDensitometryDescemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyEndothelium, CornealFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFuchs' Endothelial DystrophyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31939923
PMCPMC8175538
OpenAlexW2999417202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.