Comment on Cabrera-Aguas, M.; Watson, S.L. Updates in Diagnostic Imaging for Infectious Keratitis: A Review.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A Narrative Review on the Diagnosis of Dry Eye Disease: Insights from the Italian Dry Eye Consensus (IDEC) Group.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026
   Review
2. Evaluation of the Ultrastructural Effects on Conjunctival Epithelial Cells of a New Multiple-Action Artificial Tear Containing Cross-Linked Hyaluronic Acid, Cationic Liposomes, and Trehalose with Transmission Electron Microscopy: A Pilot Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
   Article
3. Reply to Troisi et al. Comment on "Cabrera-Aguas, M.; Watson, S.L. Updates in Diagnostic Imaging for Infectious Keratitis: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
   Article

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