ReviewVeterinary ophthalmology2025
Reconstruction of deep and perforating corneal defects in dogs-A review (Part I/III): Autogenous ocular tissues, donor tissues, and corneal clarity scoring.
Review in Veterinary ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Slit-Lamp Evaluation Provides Greater Depth Estimates in Stromal Ulcers Than High-Resolution Ultrasonic Biomicroscopy: A Prospective Study in 50 Dogs.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Predictors of Postoperative Corneal Clarity After Corneal Reconstruction for Deep Corneal Ulcers and Perforations in Dogs.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Biosynthetic Collagen-Analog Hydrogels Stimulate Endogenous Regrowth of Rabbit Corneas: A Pilot Study.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Reconstruction of deep and perforating corneal defects in dogs-A review (Part I/III): Autogenous ocular tissues, donor tissues, and corneal clarity scoring.Veterinary ophthalmology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Corneal reconstruction is a key part of veterinary ophthalmic practice and numerous reconstructive techniques have been described for use in small animals in the peer-reviewed veterinary literature written in English. Despite the evidence accrued over the last six decades in over 40 clinical articles and numerous other publications on ocular surface health, several key areas require further study. The comparison between studies is difficult due to elements that go beyond common factors, such as the indication for surgery, the reconstructive technique preferred by the surgeon or the availability of reconstructive materials. However, the differences in reporting style adopted by different authors between similar studies and the lack of data found in retrospective studies add to this complexity. The present review is divided into three parts. One covers the use of autologous materials for reconstruction and corneal transplants, as well as corneal clarity. A second part focuses on biomaterials and keratoprosthetics, while the third part focuses on the use of corneal sutures and report of ocular discomfort/pain in the veterinary literature. The review focuses on the main findings of each reconstruction technique. It aims to identify areas where key information about common procedures is missing so that general guidelines may be provided for the planning of patient record keeping and future retrospective or prospective studies, while it also aims to highlight the presence of knowledge gaps that deserve further attention.
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.