Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37217809›Full record

ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023

Quality assessment of polymer materials for human model eye development.

Geoffrey Nguyen, Tara H Balasubramanian, Dhruv M Shah, Abel S Odolil, Jamie Palmer, Moran R Levin, Ramya Swamy, Janet Leath Alexander

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Geoffrey NguyenUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Tara H BalasubramanianUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Dhruv M ShahUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abel S OdolilDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W. Redwood St., Suite 479, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Jamie PalmerUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Moran R LevinDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W. Redwood St., Suite 479, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Ramya SwamyDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W. Redwood St., Suite 479, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Janet Leath AlexanderDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W. Redwood St., Suite 479, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. Jalexander@som.umaryland.edu.
University of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe developed model eyes using six polymer materials to determine which materials were most appropriate in simulating real human sclera and extraocular muscle (EOM).

methodsFive three-dimensional (3-D) printed polymers (FlexFill, PolyFlex, PCTPE, Soft PLA, and NinjaFlex) and one silicone material were systematically tested by board-certified ophthalmologists and senior ophthalmology residents. Material testing included scleral passes with 6-0 Vicryl sutures through each eye model. Participants completed a survey designed to collect demographic data, subjective assessment of each material's accuracy in simulating real human sclera and EOM, and a ranking for each polymer material to identify which would be most suitable for an ophthalmic surgery training tool. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the distribution of ranks between the polymer materials.

resultsThe distribution of ranks for silicone material's "sclera" and "EOM" components were statistically significantly higher than that of all other polymer materials (all p < 0.05). Silicone material received the highest rank for both "sclera" and "EOM" components. Survey results indicated that the silicone material effectively simulated real human tissue.

conclusionSilicone model eyes performed better than 3-D printed polymers as an educational tool for incorporation into a microsurgical training curriculum. Silicone models provide a low-cost teaching tool that allows for independent practice of microsurgical techniques without requiring a wet-laboratory facility.

Indexed as

Internship and ResidencyOphthalmologyClinical CompetenceHumansPolymersSiliconesPolymersSiliconesModel eyeOphthalmology surgical educationOphthalmology trainingSurgical curriculumSurgical skillsThree-dimensional

Identifiers

PMID37217809
OpenAlexW4377564992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.