ArticleScientific reports2024
Integrated environmental and health economic assessments of novel xeno-keratografts addressing a growing public health crisis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Hydration as a governing state variable in the mechanical and electrical response of decellularized extracellular matrix materials.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tissue scarcity poses global challenges for corneal transplantation and public health. Xeno-keratoplasty using animal-derived tissues offers a potential solution, but its environmental and economic implications remain unclear. This study evaluated two xeno-keratoplasty procedures at a single institution: (1) native corneas (Option 1) and (2) tissue-engineered corneal scaffolds derived from slaughterhouse waste (Option 2). Life cycle assessment (LCA) quantified environmental impacts across 18 midpoint indicators, while cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) incorporated cost and environmental impact using two approaches. Option 1 exhibited significantly lower environmental impact than Option 2 across most indicators, primarily due to the energy and equipment demands of cell culture in Option 2. Both CEA approaches (carbon offset pricing and utility decrement) demonstrated cost-effectiveness dominance for Option 1. Xeno-keratoplasty using native corneas (Option 1) appears more environmentally and economically favorable than tissue-engineered scaffolds (Option 2) in the current analysis. Future studies could explore diverse xeno-keratoplasty techniques for optimizing sustainability.
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.