Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32324211›Full record

SynthesisJAMA ophthalmology2020

Outcomes of Limbal Stem Cell Transplant: A Meta-analysis.

Qihua Le, Tulika Chauhan, Madeline Yung, Chi-Hong Tseng, Sophie X Deng

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Repair of Corneal Epithelial Defects.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Qihua LeDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Stein Eye Institute, Cornea Division, University of California, Los Angeles.
Tulika ChauhanDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Stein Eye Institute, Cornea Division, University of California, Los Angeles.
Madeline YungDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Stein Eye Institute, Cornea Division, University of California, Los Angeles.
Chi-Hong TsengDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles.
Sophie X DengDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Stein Eye Institute, Cornea Division, University of California, Los Angeles.
Doheny Eye Institute · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USFudan University · CN

Funding

Ex Vivo Expansion of Human Limbal Stem Cells for TransplantationR01EY021797 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Sophie Deng · 2012 to 2026
$5.1M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY021797
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Limbal stem cell transplant (LSCT) can be categorized as direct autologous limbal transplant (AULT), direct allogenic limbal transplant (ALLT), cultivated autologous limbal stem cells transplant (cAULT), and cultivated allogenic limbal stem cells transplant (cALLT). To our knowledge, there is no study directly comparing the outcomes and complications of these procedures. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of different LSCT procedures. Data Source: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane without language filter for peer-reviewed articles about LSCT. The latest search was performed on June 30, 2019. Study Selection: Clinical studies with the outcome of at least 20 eyes after LSCT were included. Animal studies and studies of other surgical interventions were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently abstracted the data from each study. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 statistic, and a meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures included the improvement of ocular surface, visual acuity (VA), and adverse events of recipient eyes and donor eyes. Results: Forty studies (2202 eyes) with a mean (SD) follow-up of 31.3 (20.9) months met the inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) age of study participants was 38.4 (13.1) years, and men accounted for 74%. The number of eyes that underwent AULT, ALLT, cAULT, and cALLT were 505, 742, 771, and 184, respectively. Improvement of the ocular surface was achieved in 74.5% of all eyes, 85.7% of eyes after AULT (95% CI, 79.5%-90.3%), 84.7% after cAULT (95% CI, 77.2%-90.0%), 57.8% after ALLT (95% CI, 49.0%-66.1%), and 63.2% after cALLT (95% CI, 49.3%-75.2%). Autologous limbal transplantation resulted in a greater VA improvement rate (76%) than did the other 3 procedures (cAULT: 56.4%; ALLT: 52.3%; cALLT: 43.3%; all P < .001). The most common adverse events in all recipient eyes were recurrent/persistent epithelial erosion (10.5%; 95% CI, 7.2%-23.3%) and elevated intraocular pressure (intraocular pressure, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.5%-7.8%). Patients who underwent ALLT had the highest rate of recurrent epithelial erosion (27.8%; 95% CI, 17.1%-41.9%) and intraocular pressure elevation (6.3%; 95% CI, 1.8%-19.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest LSCT can improve or stabilize the corneal surface with a low rate of severe ocular complications and that autologous LSCT may have a higher success rate and fewer complications than allogenic LSCT.

Indexed as

Visual AcuityCells, CulturedCorneal DiseasesCorneal TransplantationGraft SurvivalHumansLimbus CorneaeStem Cell TransplantationTransplantation, Autologous

Identifiers

PMID32324211
PMCPMC7180742
OpenAlexW3018545496

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.