Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34155280›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2021

Amniotic membrane transplantation for infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Darren Shu Jeng Ting, Christin Henein, Dalia G Said, Harminder S Dua

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Multilayered fresh amniotic membrane transplantation in resistant fungal corneal ulceration.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025
    Article
  17. Acanthamoeba keratitis: from pathophysiology to prevention, a contemporary clinical perspective.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Darren Shu Jeng TingAcademic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. ting.darren@gmail.com.
Christin HeneinNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre At Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Dalia G SaidAcademic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Harminder S DuaAcademic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T001674/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infectious keratitis (IK) is the 5th leading cause of blindness globally. Broad-spectrum topical antimicrobial treatment is the current mainstay of treatment for IK, though adjuvant treatment or surgeries are often required in refractory cases of IK. This systematic review aimed to examine the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) for treating IK. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central, were searched for relevant articles. All clinical studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled studies and case series (n > 5), were included. Primary outcome measure was time to complete corneal healing and secondary outcome measures included corrected-distance-visual-acuity (CDVA), uncorrected-distance-visual-acuity (UDVA), corneal vascularization and adverse events. A total of twenty-eight studies (including four RCTs) with 861 eyes were included. When compared to standard antimicrobial treatment alone, adjuvant AMT resulted in shorter mean time to complete corneal healing (- 4.08 days; 95% CI - 6.27 to - 1.88; p < 0.001) and better UDVA (- 0.26 logMAR; - 0.50 to - 0.02; p = 0.04) at 1 month follow-up in moderate-to-severe bacterial and fungal keratitis, with no significant difference in the risk of adverse events (risk ratio 0.80; 0.46-1.38; p = 0.42). One RCT demonstrated that adjuvant AMT resulted in better CDVA and less corneal vascularization at 6 months follow-up (both p < 0.001). None of the RCTs examined the use of adjuvant AMT in herpetic or Acanthamoeba keratitis, though the benefit was supported by a number of case series. In conclusion, AMT serves as a useful adjuvant therapy in improving corneal healing and visual outcome in bacterial and fungal keratitis (low-quality evidence). Further adequately powered, high-quality RCTs are required to ascertain its therapeutic potential, particularly for herpetic and Acanthamoeba keratitis. Future standardization of the core outcome set in IK-related trials would be invaluable.

Indexed as

AmnionAnimalsDisease ManagementDisease SusceptibilityHumansKeratitisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34155280
PMCPMC8217254
OpenAlexW3177309322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.