GuidelineEuropean journal of ophthalmology2024
Survey: Preferred practice patterns in the diagnosis of mucous membrane pemphigoid amongst cornea specialists.
Guideline in European journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective management of biopsy-proven ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid using an inflammation-oriented stepladder treatment strategy.AJO international · 2026Article
- Challenges and advances in ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid (OMMP); from pathogenesis to treatment strategies.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate preferred diagnostic tools and treatment decision-making factors in cases suspicious of mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) amongst ophthalmologists and cornea specialists.
methodsWeb-based survey, consisting of 14 multiple choice questions, posted to the Cornea Society Listserv Keranet, the Canadian Ophthalmological Society Cornea Listserv, and the Bowman Club Listserv.
resultsOne hundred and thirty-eight ophthalmologists participated in the survey. Eighty-six percent (86%) of respondents were cornea trained and practiced in either North America or Europe (83%). Most respondents (72%) routinely perform conjunctival biopsies for all suspicious cases of MMP. For those who do not, fear that biopsy will exacerbate inflammation was the most common reason to defer investigation (47%). Seventy-one percent (71%) performed biopsies from perilesional sites. Ninety-seven percent (97%) ask for direct (DIF) studies and 60% for histopathology in formalin. Most do not recommend biopsy at other non-ocular sites (75%), nor do they perform indirect immunofluorescence for serum autoantibodies (68%). Immune-modulatory therapy is started following positive biopsy results for most (66%), albeit most (62%) would not let a negative DIF influence the choice of starting treatment should there be clinical suspicion of MMP. Differences in practice patterns as they relate to level of experience and geographical location are contrasted to the most up-to-date available guidelines.
conclusionResponses to the survey suggest that there is heterogeneity in certain practice patterns for MMP. Biopsy remains an area of controversy in dictating treatment plans. Identified areas of need should be targeted in future research.
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.