ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Exploring the Potential of an Eye Tissue Donor Reporting App in Enhancing the Procurement of Corneal Donors: Mixed Methods Observational Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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.
- Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Eye Banking: A Proposed Workflow.Eye banking and corneal transplantation · 2026Article
- A multimodal approach to smart and sustained drug delivery for corneal wound management: the GelPol nanoformulation.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe availability of donated eye tissue saves and enhances vision in transplant recipients; however, the current demand for tissue surpasses the available supply. Corneal donor shortages lead to increased wait times, delayed surgeries, prolonged visual impairment, and increased inconvenience to patients requiring eye tissue transplantation. A web-based application was previously developed to facilitate easy and intuitive submission of potential donor information.
objectiveThe primary objectives of this study were to assess health care professionals' attitudes toward the potential application and evaluate its effectiveness based on user feedback and donor registrations through the application.
methodsResearchers used a mixed methods approach, commencing with a literature review to identify challenges associated with donor procurement. Stakeholder interviews were conducted to gauge health care professionals' perspectives regarding the application. User feedback was collected through questionnaires, surveys, and interviews to assess the application's usability and impact. An assessment of the reported potential donors and questionnaire responses were analyzed.
resultsThe final version of the application successfully reported 24 real cornea donors. Among 64 health care providers who used the application to communicate about potential donors, 32 of them submitted trial entries exclusively for testing purposes. The remaining 8 health care professionals reported potential donors; however, these individuals did not meet the donor qualification criteria. The majority of participants found the application user-friendly and expressed their readiness to use it in the future. Positive ratings were assigned to the layout, appearance, purpose, and specific features of the application. Respondents highlighted the automatic sending of notifications via SMS text messages and the integration of all necessary documents for donor qualification and tissue collection as the most valuable functions of the application.
conclusionsThe study indicates that donor reporting applications offer promising solutions to enhance tissue donor procurement. This application streamlined the reporting process, reduced paperwork, facilitated communication, and collected valuable data for analysis.
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.