ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2024
The effect of cultured autologous oral mucosal epithelial cells on ocular surface reconstruction.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cellular therapy for traumatic brain injury in adults: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.Archives of medical science : AMS · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Oral epithelial cells were recently shown to be able to differentiate into corneal epithelium, and the efficacy of cultured autologous oral mucosal epithelial cells (CAOMEC) has been suggested by the presence of epithelium replacement. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment outcome in limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) by adding CAOMEC to regular amniotic membrane (AM) treatment. Material and methods: Eyes with LSCD were randomized to two groups to undergo either autologous oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet (CAOMECS) combined with AM transplantation (A group) or AM transplantation alone (B group). Clinical outcome measures were corneal epithelium healing, best corrected visual acuity, symblepharon, corneal transparency, corneal neovascularization and ocular surface inflammation. Results: The normal corneal epithelialization rate in group A (73.33%) was higher than that in group B (35.48%), and the average healing time was shorter (3.45 ±2.12 weeks vs. 4.64 ±1.63 weeks). The symblepharon in the above two groups was improved in the first 3 months after surgery, but after 6 months, part of the B group had recurrence. In improving corneal transparency, group A has obvious advantages. Corneal neovascularization (CNV) was improved to some extent in the first 3 months after surgery, but group A (1.47 ±0.64) was better than group B (1.94 ±0.85) after 6 months. Both groups can improve the inflammatory state to some extent. Conclusions: The transplantation of CAOMECS offers a viable and safe alternative in the reconstruction of a stable ocular surface. The effect is better than that of traditional AM transplantation, mainly in promoting corneal epithelialization, improving ocular surface structure, and reducing fiber and vascular infiltration.
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.