ArticleFaculty reviews2022
Restoring partial vision to a blind patient.
Article in Faculty reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This paper reports an important breakthrough in partially restoring sight to a man who had lost his vision due to retinitis pigmentosa (RP), a heritable retinal degenerative disease that affects approximately 1 in 4000 people. Long considered an insurmountable challenge, a stellar team of vision scientists, engineers, basic biologists, and others, working together for many years, has enabled a man who had been legally blind for decades to begin distinguishing objects and navigating his environment
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.