ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Hospital Cornea Retrieval Programme in a startup eye bank - A retrospective analysis and lessons learned.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbiological spectrum and probability of transmission of infection from ocular tissues of enucleated eyes harvested from septicemic donors.World journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- Partnership models in eye banking - Impact and relevance in Indian context.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Article
- The 2023 Doyne Lecture-a cornea care system: evolution.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Innovations in Corneal Transplantation: The Role of Eye Banks, Donor Corneas, and Artificial Alternatives in Combating Worldwide Corneal Blindness.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to share our experience in the hospital cornea retrieval program as a new eye bank. Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care institute from August 26, 2019 to March 22, 2020. The medical and eye bank records were analyzed for hospital mortality, mortuary records, and donors approached. The corneal collection was divided between Voluntary (received from voluntary calls), HCRP (cornea received from hospital deaths), and Medico-Legal Cases (received from MLC deaths in hospital) to see the trend of donation and utilization over time. Results: During the study period, 154 corneas (77 pairs) were collected. The HCRP provided a major source of corneas 58.4% (90 corneas) as compared to voluntary 19.5% (30 corneas) and MLC 22.1%(34 corneas). There were younger tissues in MLC than HCRP donors, and older tissues in Voluntary donors, and the difference was statistically significant. There was no significant difference in the quality of optical grade tissues and the utilization of corneas for transplants between the three groups. Post hoc analysis showed more non-optical tissues in the voluntary donations (P = 0.004), maximum donors with medical contraindications in the HCRP group (P = 0.001), and time-lapse in corneal retrieval in MLC cases (P = 0.0001). Of these 154 corneas, 78 (50.6%) were assessed as suitable for transplantation, of which 59 (75.6%) tissues were optical grade tissues. The overall utilization was 39.6%. Conclusion: HCRP is indeed challenging for a new eye bank, but proper understanding and implementing strategies may help for good utilization of tissues.
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.