ReviewDie Ophthalmologie2022
[Conjunctival reconstruction-State of the art of regenerative treatment forms beyond the limbus].
Review in Die Ophthalmologie, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe demands on conjunctival replacement tissues are high: they need to be elastic, clinically compatible, surgically feasible and support goblet cell growth.
objectiveThis article provides an overview of currently applied conjunctival replacement tissues and those under investigation.
methodCurrent publications on clinically applied conjunctival replacement tissues and substrates which are the subject of scientific research and those already tested in animal models are presented and discussed.
resultsReplacement tissues in clinical use are autologous and allogenic conjunctiva, nasal and oral mucous membranes, amniotic membrane and decellularized tissues. Autologous conjunctiva shows good results but is not suitable for large defects due to limited availability. In these cases autologous nasal and oral mucous membranes can be used; however, success is limited in cases of autoimmune diseases. Amniotic membranes are frequently applied clinically but goblet cell growth is limited. Different decellularized tissues are used clinically and goblet cell growth was found in vivo. Robust comparative studies are not yet available. Biological matrices such as fibrin, collagen, elastin, gelatin or hyaluronate and synthetic tissues from the group of polyesters are being investigated in the laboratory and in animal models. These studies show good epithelialization and goblet cell growth in vivo.
conclusionTransplantation of conjunctiva, nasal and oral mucous membranes and amniotic membranes show satisfactory clinical results but exhibit individual weaknesses. Further studies in animal models and clinical settings are required to further evaluate the benefits of other matrices, such as cell-free tissues or other biological and synthetic matrices.
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.