ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020
Practical use of rubric for assessment of eye bank professionals for eye retrieval and its role in improving eye retrieval process in eye banks: An Indo-American experience.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indian eye banking at crossroads: From volume to value.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Commentary: Practical use of rubric for assessment of eye bank professionals for eye retrieval.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To study the practical use of the Rubric for Assessment of Eye Bank Professionals for Eye Retrieval (RAEPER) as a competency assessment tool by organizing a workshop in two eye banks - one in India and other in America. Methods: Two-day workshop was conducted in two eye banks - named Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital (SCEH) in India and Miracles in Sight (MIS) in America. Day 1 of workshop comprised of didactic lectures and discussions and day 2 was eye retrieval assessment done on human eyes in a wet lab setting. Assessment was done using RAEPER by two independent senior eye bank managers. Results: MIS had 27 participants, 15 males and 12 females (mean age: 38.8 years, range: 28-55) and SCEH had 11 participants, 10 males and 1 female (mean age: 48 years, range: 22-68). All participants were in house technicians, who had a minimal experience of at least 150 eye retrievals. At MIS, step 19 (crystalline lens check) got a score of 3 (Competent) 93.5% of the time. At SCEH, step 6 (conjunctival removal) and step 4 (Irrigation of cornea with sterile saline) were high scoring with 90.11% and 72.7% scoring 3, respectively. Conclusion: India's cornea blind population is expected to reach 10 million by 2020. Steps need to be taken to improve cornea retrieval rates in the country and make various eye banks self-sufficient. Incorporating such training modules not only improves the cornea utilization rates, but also helps standardize the entire eye banking process.
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.