ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Chronic Ocular GVHD Treatment at Two Locations of a Tertiary Referral Center.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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.
- Long-term clinical outcomes in chronic ocular graft-versus-host disease: a retrospective cohort study.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- [Ocular graft versus host disease].Die Ophthalmologie · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare baseline characteristics and treatment of chronic ocular graft-versus-host disease (oGVHD) patients in two treatment locations. Patients and Methods: Patients diagnosed with definite chronic oGVHD between September 1, 2014 and September 20, 2021 at two locations were identified. IRB-approved retrospective chart review was conducted for the following data: demographic information, ocular surface disease index (OSDI), corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), and treatment(s) used. Differences by site were assessed using Pearson's Chi-Square tests and two-sample t-tests; differences by time were assessed using paired t-tests. Results: At baseline, Clinic 1 (C1) patients had a worse mean OSDI score (47.8 vs 36.3, p = 0.011) and CFS in both OD (1.3 vs 0.8, p = 0.005) and OS (1.3 vs 0.6, p < 0.001) compared to Clinic 2 (C2). Comparing baseline to endpoint, C1 patients experienced an improvement in OSDI (-17.26, p < 0.001), CFS OD (-0.50, p < 0.001), and CFS OS (-0.51, p < 0.001) at C1. Change in OSDI, CFS OD, or CFS OS was not statistically significant at C2. Despite similar follow-up length, C1 demonstrated more clinic visits (10.4 vs 3.4, p < 0.001) and more treatment trials (4.9 vs 2.4, p < 0.001) compared to C2. Punctal plugs (85.5% vs 61.2%, p = 0.002), punctal cautery (69.7% vs 28.6%, p < 0.001), topical steroids (72.4% vs 22.4%, p < 0.001), and autologous serum tears (AST) (52.6% vs 8.2%, p < 0.001) were used more frequently at C1 than at C2. Conclusion: oGVHD patients at C1 experienced significant improvement in OSDI and corneal fluorescein staining and compared to patients at C2, had more frequent follow-up and use of punctal plugs, punctal cautery, topical steroids, and AST.
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.