Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40615612›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2025

Advances in corneal transplantation.

Christopher Tay, Harika Reddy, Jodhbir S Mehta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christopher TayYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4064-7691
Harika ReddyBharathi Eye Hospital, Kadapa, India.
Jodhbir S MehtaSingapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore. jodhbir.s.mehta@singhealth.com.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6362-4898

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many corneal diseases, transplantation is the gold standard for curative treatment and restoration of vision. Penetrating keratoplasty (PKP), performed by Zirm in 1905, was the first successful corneal transplantation procedure. Since then, relentless advancement in the field has occurred, most importantly with the development of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK), Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), which have been rapidly increasing in usage and are poised to take over PKP in prevalence and effectiveness in treating specific stromal and endothelial pathologies. The biggest issues currently facing this field are the lack of availability of donor corneas and lack of accessibility of the procedure to many areas of the world. Recent and future advancements are focused on substitutes to increase the amount of graft material for use and technological developments to streamline keratoplasty techniques, making them more effective, easier to perform and associated with less complications. Bio-engineered corneas, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine can create grafts through various mechanisms: acellular, synthetic scaffolds and medical therapies to promote endogenous cell regeneration or exogenous cultivation of corneal tissues from stem-cells. Keratoplasty has also been refined by the introduction of femtosecond laser (FSL), which when combined with intra-operative optical coherence tomography (iOCT) allows for finer cuts and novel techniques which can improve the outcomes from PKP, DALK and DMEK.

Indexed as

Corneal DiseasesCorneal TransplantationDescemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyHumansKeratoplasty, PenetratingTissue Engineering

Identifiers

PMID40615612
PMCPMC12402337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.