ArticleCornea2020
Comparisons of Cornea Cold, a New Corneal Storage Medium, and Optisol-GS.
Article in Cornea, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Porcine Cornea Storage Ex Vivo Model as an Alternative to Human Donor Tissues for Investigations of Endothelial Layer Preservation.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Update of Research Progress on Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) Lenticule Reuse.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Swept-source OCT for corneal graft quantitative evaluation in the eye bank and the correlation of the measurements to pre-excision values.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Nomogram for single-pass automated microkeratome graft preparation for ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Clinical application of a shape-preserving rapid corneal donor dehydrater.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Thickness Profile of Donated Corneas Preserved in Optisol-GS versus Sinasol: An Ex-vivo Study.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study compares the quality of donor corneal tissue stored in Optisol-GS and Cornea Cold.
methodsSeventeen pairs of donor corneas were obtained from an eye bank. One of each pair was stored in Cornea Cold or Optisol-GS. Endothelial cell loss (ECL), central corneal thickness (CCT), and endothelial cell density (ECD) were measured at 7 and 21 days of storage. Qualitative metrics were evaluated by using a slit lamp.
resultsAt days 7 and 21, there were no observed differences in qualitative corneal health of the samples. There were no statistical differences in the mean ECL at 7 and 21 days between the 2 groups (P = 0.07 and P = 0.50, respectively). At 7 days, the mean CCT was 644 ± 52 μm in the Cornea Cold group and 591 ± 64 μm in the Optisol-GS group (P = 0.001). At 21 days, CCT was 714 ± 55 μm in the Cornea Cold group and 708 ± 58 μm in the Optisol-GS group (P = 0.70). The mean ECD was not statistically different between the groups (P = 0.56 at 7 days and P = 0.14 at 21 days).
conclusionsStorage of corneal donor tissue in the Optisol-GS and Cornea Cold storage media resulted in statistically comparable ECL and ECD for up to 21 days. CCT was higher in Cornea Cold at 7 days, but this discrepancy disappeared at 21 days.
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.