Corneal abrasions in space: current therapeutics and future directions.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Artificial Intelligence for In-Flight Detection of Space-Related Ocular Trauma: Bridging Diagnostic Gaps in Microgravity.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Review
2. Management of corneal injuries in spaceflight and recommendations for planetary missions.NPJ microgravity · 2025
   Article
3. The evaluation and management of corneal penetrating and perforating injuries during long-duration spaceflight.Eye (London, England) · 2024
   Article
4. Ultrasound Biomicroscopy as a Novel, Potential Modality to Evaluate Anterior Segment Ophthalmic Structures during Spaceflight: An Analysis of Current Technology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as