ArticleExperimental eye research2021
Effect of penetration enhancer with novel corneal cross-linking using recombinant human decoron in porcine eyes.
Article in Experimental eye research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Corneal Reshaping Using Riboflavin-UVA Crosslinking Combined With Decorin in Rabbits.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Hierarchical biomechanical characterisation of riboflavin-UVA crosslinking and decorin treatment in the porcine cornea.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Biomechanics of Ophthalmic Crosslinking.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of exogenous recombinant human decoron and an accompanying penetration-enhancing solution in stiffening ex-vivo porcine corneas both transepithelially and after de-epithelialization. Eight porcine paired eyes were treated transepithelially: one eye with a pre-treatment solution (Pre-Tx), penetration enhancing solution (PE), and decoron while the fellow eye was treated by the same protocol but without decoron. A second group included 4 de-epithelialized pairs treated identically. The final group included 4 de-epithelialized pairs with one eye treated with Pre-Tx, PE, and decoron while the fellow eye was treated without PE. Uniaxial tensile testing was used to compare the corneal stiffness between the different treatment conditions. Residual tissue underwent immunohistochemistry analysis to evaluate the depth of penetration of decoron into the corneal stroma. There was no stiffening effect exhibited among corneas treated transepithelially with decoron compared to control (P > 0.05) and poor stromal penetration was exhibited on tissue analysis. Among de-epithelialized corneas, there was a significant stiffening effect seen in those treated with decoron at 3%, 4%, 5%, & 6% strain (P < 0.05) compared to control. Among de-epithelialized corneas there was also a significant stiffening effect seen in those treated with the PE and decoron at 4%, 5%, & 6% strain (P < 0.05) with improved stromal penetration confirmed by immunohistochemistry, versus without PE. De-epithelialization is necessary for effective stromal penetration of decoron. Depth of penetration and subsequent corneal stiffening may be improved with a penetration enhancing solution. Compared to riboflavin, decoron requires shorter treatment time and spares UV light exposure.
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.