ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2024
Prevalence of limbal stem cell deficiency at an academic referral center over a two-year period.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surface modified electrospun scaffold supports iPSC-derived limbal stem cell function.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Article
- Current Landscape and Future Prospects of Corneal Regenerative Medicine.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Diagnostic approach to limbal stem cell deficiency.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Review
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
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) in the setting of a tertiary referral cornea practice at an academic center. Patient and methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify all unique medical record numbers (MRNs) presenting to a single cornea specialist (JHH) at the University of Minnesota during calendar years 2019 and 2020. Records were queried and confirmed for a diagnosis of LSCD. Clinical characteristics of identified patients, including demographics, etiology of LSCD, severity of LSCD, treatment, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at final follow-up, were documented. Results: In total 1436 unique MRNs were identified over the study period. There were 61 individuals (91 eyes) diagnosed with LSCD, resulting in a prevalence of 4.25% (95% CI, 3.33-5.42). Of 91 eyes, 60 eyes were bilateral (65.9%). Among all eyes, ocular surface burns were the most common etiology (18.7%) followed by iatrogenic or medicamentosa (15.4%). There were 51 eyes (56.0%) that underwent some form of transplantation. The median BCVA at final follow-up was Snellen 20/80 (range 20/20 to no light perception). Conclusions: The prevalence of LSCD found at a cornea subspecialty tertiary referral center in our study was much higher than previously reported prevalence rates. This may reflect referral bias and potential underdiagnosis of LSCD in practices outside of subspecialty referral centers. The high prevalence rate in our study also suggests that LSCD patients are concentrated in subspecialty referral practices, with many having high morbidity disease. This constitutes a major health burden for these practices.
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.