ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Classification and treatment approach of chemical burn associated Limbal stem cell deficiency: based on novel global consensus.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo evaluate the severity distribution of chemical burn-induced Limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) according to the novel global consensus classification and to compare the treatment approach, before and after the global consensus.
methodsMedical records of 127 eyes of 109 patients with LSCD were included. LSCD stages were categorized according to the global consensus classification published by "International LSCD Working Group".
resultsThe mean age was 37.5 ± 16.5(6-75). The distribution of LSCD stage according to the global consensus scale was as follows: Stage 1A in 5 eyes(3.9%);Stage 1B in 16 eyes(12.6%);Stage 1C in 4 eyes(3.2%);Stage 2A in 15 eyes(11.8%);Stage 2B in 36 eyes(28.3%);Stage 3 in 51 eyes(40.2%). A total of 88(69.3%) eyes underwent surgery for LSCD. Of these, 80 had surgery prior to the publication of the global consensus (before October 2020), 58(72.5%) had preoperative severe (≥ Stage 2B) LSCD and 22(27.5%) had preoperative early stage (≤ Stage 2A) LSCD. As of October 2020, all 8 eyes that underwent surgery had preoperative severe (≥ Stage 2B) LSCD, as recommended by global consensus.
conclusionRecently, a global consensus has been established on both the classification and the management of LSCD. This study is one of the first to present small-scale epidemiological data on the severity distribution of LSCD in the light of the global consensus. It was observed that surgery was performed on 27.5% of the eyes that were not recommended for surgery according to this new consensus. With the increasing awareness of this consensus, it might be possible to avoid unnecessary surgical intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39853616What 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.