ArticlePloS one2021
Cornea donation process and tissue quality for transplantation.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Loss of quality of corneas stored in hypothermic preservation media during processing and evaluation in an eye bank: a cohort study.Cell and tissue banking · 2026Article
- Article
- The donation-transplantation process and corneal graft failure: A case-control study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Analysis of cardiovascular risk factors for the viability of cornea donors: a case-control study.BMJ open · 2023Observational
- Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Donor Corneal Tissue by Slit Lamp and Specular Microscopy.Cureus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe quality of the corneal tissue can be influenced by several factors inherent to the recipient, donor, and to the donation and transplantation process. The donated corneal tissue can be classified by its quality as excellent, good, regular, bad, or unacceptable for transplantation, evaluating it in a slit lamp.
objectiveTo analyze the relationship between the clinical and sociodemographic variables of the donors and the donation process and the classification of the quality of the corneal tissue collected for transplantation.
methodsThis is an epidemiologic study, retrospective cohort type, which addressed the process of cornea donation by the Human Eye Tissue Bank in a reference service in Northeast Brazil. The sample consisted of corneas processed by the Human Eye Tissue Bank of Rio Grande do Norte (n = 419). For descriptive and inferential analysis, the study used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 25.0, and considered a significance level of 0.05. Logistic regression analysis was used for the adjustment of the final model.
resultsIt was verified that the epidemiological profile showed a prevalence of individuals with a mean age of 42.54 years old, male (73.99%), and living in the metropolitan region of the state capital (75.66%). When analyzing the relationship between the clinical and sociodemographic variables of the donors, it was identified that those aged 45 years old or less had better quality corneas (excellent and good), while the chronological variables were predictive factors for corneas of regular and bad qualities.
conclusionThe identification of the factors inherent to the donation process and predictors of corneal tissue quality contribute to minimizing the risk of transplantation and to a better ocular prognosis.
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.