Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33568390›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of ophthalmology2022

Identification of presumed corneal neuromas and microneuromas using laser-scanning in vivo confocal microscopy: a systematic review.

Holly Rose Chinnery, Rajni Rajan, Haihan Jiao, Mengliang Wu, Alexis Ceecee Zhang, Manikkuwadura Eranda Harshan De Silva, Eve Makrai, Mary Ann Stepp, Nick Di Girolamo, Laura Elizabeth Downie

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Update on Corneal Confocal Microscopy Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Holly Rose ChinneryDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Rajni RajanDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Haihan JiaoDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Mengliang WuDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Alexis Ceecee ZhangDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Manikkuwadura Eranda Harshan De SilvaDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Eve MakraiDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Mary Ann SteppSchool of Medicine & Health Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Nick Di GirolamoSchool of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Laura Elizabeth DownieDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia ldownie@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1596-2259
The University of Melbourne · AUGeorge Washington University · USUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Molecular mechanisms of corneal recurrent erosion formationR01EY008512 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI STEPP, MARY ANN · 1990 to 2024
$11.7M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY008512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThis systematic review critically evaluated peer-reviewed publications describing morphological features consistent with, or using terms related to, a 'neuroma' or 'microneuroma' in the human cornea using laser-scanning in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM).

methodsThe review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020160038). Comprehensive literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and the Cochrane Library in November 2019. The review included primary research studies and reviews that described laser-scanning IVCM for examining human corneal nerves. Papers had to include at least one of a pre-specified set of keyword stems, broadly related to neuromas and microneuromas, to describe a corneal nerve feature.

resultsTwenty-five papers (20 original studies; 5 reviews) were eligible. Three original studies evaluated corneal nerve features in healthy eyes. Most papers assessed corneal nerves in ocular and systemic conditions; seven studies did not include a control/comparator group. There was overlap in terminology used to describe nerve features in healthy and diseased corneas (eg, bulb-like/bulbous, penetration, end/s/ing). Inspection of IVCM images within the papers revealed that features termed 'neuromas' and 'microneuromas' could potentially be physiological corneal stromal-epithelial nerve penetration sites. We identified inconsistent definitions for terms, and limitations in IVCM image acquisition, sampling and/or reporting that may introduce bias and lead to inaccurate representation of physiological nerve characteristics as pathological.

conclusionThese findings identify a need for consistent nomenclature and definitions, and rigorous IVCM scanning and analysis protocols to clarify the prevalence of physiological, as opposed to pathological, corneal nerve features.

Indexed as

CorneaNeuromaCorneal StromaHumansLasersMicroscopy, Confocalcorneaimaging

Identifiers

PMID33568390
PMCPMC8353004
OpenAlexW3127021709

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.