Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35282172›Full record

ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

Current Perspectives on Corneal Transplantation.

Siyin Liu, Yee Ling Wong, Andrew Walkden

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Combined PRP and Contact Lens for Corneal Ulcer Perforation: A Case Report.International medical case reports journal · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Regenerative therapy · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Transforming meat waste into sustainable corneal keratoplasty models.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Siyin LiuManchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2684-4212
Yee Ling WongManchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6109-8836
Andrew WalkdenManchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9196-6219

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disease of the cornea is the third leading cause of blindness worldwide. Corneal graft surgery is one of the most successful forms of solid organ transplantations in humans, with ever-increasing developments in surgical technique. To date, approximately 4504 corneal transplants are performed in the United Kingdom each year. While full thickness transplantation was the most commonly performed keratoplasty over the last few decades, selective lamellar transplantation of the diseased layers of the cornea has been universally adopted. This comprehensive review aims to provide an updated synthesis on different types of corneal transplantations, their treatment outcomes, and the associated complications of each procedure in both adult and paediatric population. In addition, we also present an up-to-date summary of the emerging therapeutic approaches that have the potential to reduce the demand for donor-dependent keratoplasty.

Indexed as

corneal blindnesscorneal transplantationgraft rejectiongraft survivalkeratoplasty

Identifiers

PMID35282172
PMCPMC8904759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.