ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2021
Profile of donors and corneal tissue obtained through hospital cornea retrieval programme in a recently established eye bank of a tertiary care teaching hospital of Eastern India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics of corneal donors from local procurement at Lions Eye Bank Jakarta: an eight-year report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Current concepts and recent trends in endothelial keratoplasty.World journal of transplantation · 2025Review
- Article
- Impact of an educational video in improving awareness of eye donation among non-medical health care workers in a tertiary health centre.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThere is a global need for quality eye banking practices and sensitization of primary care physicians toward corneal donation.
aimsTo evaluate performance of a recently established eye bank (EB) and quality of corneas obtained, and identify areas of improvement during procurement and utilization of donor corneas. SETTINGS AND
designThis retrospective observational study is based on records of corneas collected through hospital cornea retrieval programme (HRCP) in the EB of a tertiary care institution during the first 2 years of its establishment. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Data on demographic characteristics of donors, death-preservation interval, specular microscopy parameters of corneas, indications for utilization, and reasons for non-utilization of corneas were collected. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Means, standard deviation, range, frequencies, and proportions were analyzed. Spearman's correlation coefficient and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied taking
resultsThe EB retrieved 54 corneas from 27 donors with mean age 42.3 ± 24.2 years. All tissues were preserved in Cornisol®. Majority (50%) of transplantable tissues had an endothelial cell density (ECD) between 2,000 and 2,500 cells/mm
conclusionsSuccessful HCRP of the recently established EB has shown considerable promise in terms of quality and utilisation of corneas. There is need for active involvement of primary care physicians in contributing to increasing voluntary eye donation through awareness, advocacy, and social mobilization.
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.