Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34380324›Full record

ReviewRegenerative medicine2021

Challenges in corneal endothelial cell culture.

Rintra Wongvisavavit, Mohit Parekh, Sajjad Ahmad, Julie T Daniels

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Regenerative medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Regenerative therapy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Semiautomatic assessment of endothelial density and morphology in organ-cultured corneas - potential predictors for transplantation suitability and clinical outcome?Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Are organ and co-cultures an alternative to animal models in ophthalmology?]Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022
    Article
  13. 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.

Rintra WongvisavavitInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8374-4309
Mohit ParekhInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Sajjad AhmadMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Julie T DanielsInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Corneal endothelial cells (CECs) facilitate the function of maintaining the transparency of the cornea. Damage or dysfunction of CECs can lead to blindness, and the primary treatment is corneal transplantation. However, the shortage of cornea donors is a significant problem worldwide. Thus, cultured CEC therapy has been proposed and found to be a promising approach to overcome the lack of tissue supply. Unfortunately, CECs in humans rarely proliferate

Indexed as

Corneal TransplantationEndothelium, CornealCells, CulturedCorneaCulture MediaEndothelial CellsHumansCulture Mediacell culturecorneal endothelial cell markerscorneal endothelial cellscorneal endothelial cell therapy

Identifiers

PMID34380324
PMCPMC8445152

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.