Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38280103›Full record

ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2024

Animal Models for Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency: A Critical Narrative Literature Review.

Eray Atalay, Burcugül Altuğ, Mert Egemen Çalışkan, Semih Ceylan, Zeynep Serra Özler, Gustavo Figueiredo, Majlinda Lako, Francisco Figueiredo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Eray AtalayDepartment of Ophthalmology, Eskişehir Osmangazi University Medical School, Eskişehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2536-4279
Burcugül AltuğCellular Therapy and Stem Cell Production Application, Research Centre (ESTEM), Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4460-8467
Mert Egemen ÇalışkanEskişehir Osmangazi University Medical School, Eskişehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8396-1549
Semih CeylanEskişehir Osmangazi University Medical School, Eskişehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6690-0779
Zeynep Serra ÖzlerEskişehir Osmangazi University Medical School, Eskişehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0013-1230
Gustavo FigueiredoCounty Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, Darlington, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8795-6093
Majlinda LakoBiosciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1327-8573
Francisco FigueiredoBiosciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. francisco.figueiredo@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5876-288X
Eskişehir Osmangazi University · TRCounty Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust · GBNewcastle University · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GB

Funding

Fight for Sight UK 5181/5182Medical Research Council G0900879Medical Research Council MR/S035826/1Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu 123S073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This literature review will provide a critical narrative overview of the highlights and potential pitfalls of the reported animal models for limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) and will identify the neglected aspects of this research area. There exists significant heterogeneity in the literature regarding the methodology used to create the model and the predefined duration after the insult when the model is supposedly fully fit for evaluations and/or for testing various therapeutic interventions. The literature is also replete with examples wherein the implementation of a specific model varies significantly across different studies. For example, the concentration of the chemical, as well as its duration and technique of exposure in a chemically induced LSCD model, has a great impact not only on the validity of the model but also on the severity of the complications. Furthermore, while some models induce a full-blown clinical picture of total LSCD, some are hindered by their ability to yield only partial LSCD. Another aspect to consider is the nature of the damage induced by a specific method. As thermal methods cause more stromal scarring, they may be better suited for assessing the anti-fibrotic properties of a particular treatment. On the other hand, since chemical burns cause more neovascularisation, they provide the opportunity to tap into the potential treatments for anti-neovascularisation. The animal species (i.e., rats, mice, rabbits, etc.) is also a crucial factor in the validity of the model and its potential for clinical translation, with each animal having its unique set of advantages and disadvantages. This review will also elaborate on other overlooked aspects, such as the anaesthetic(s) used during experiments, the gender of the animals, care after LSCD induction, and model validation. The review will conclude by providing future perspectives and suggestions for further developments in this rather important area of research.

Indexed as

Alkali burnsAnimal modelsLimbal stem cell deficiencyLimbal stem cell insufficiencyLSCDThermal burns

Identifiers

PMID38280103
PMCPMC10853161
OpenAlexW4391277650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.