ReviewCureus2025
The Role of Bandage Contact Lenses Versus Amniotic Membrane in Corneal Wound Healing: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Corneal wound healing plays a vital role in restoring ocular surface integrity following injury or disease. Both bandage contact lenses (BCLs) and amniotic membranes (AM) are non-pharmacologic interventions widely used in ocular surface disease management. This systematic review focuses on presenting high-level clinical evidence supporting the effectiveness of bandage contact lenses versus amniotic membrane in corneal wound healing. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching five medical databases for relevant scholarly papers. The search was limited to studies published from January 2010 to March 2024. These databases included PUBMED, Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. The study assessed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and prospective studies involving patients with corneal ulcers. It included studies that reported outcomes such as corneal opacity density, neovascularization, and the healing period of epithelial defects. Two independent, experienced researchers screened the extracted papers for potential inclusion, and in cases of disagreement, they engaged in discussions to resolve the issue. Relevant data were extracted from the selected studies using a structured data collection form. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias in clinical trials and randomized controlled trials, while the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was applied to assess prospective/retrospective, cross-sectional, and cohort studies. The results of the study indicate that BCLs and amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) are safe and effective treatments for dry eye disease and corneal lesions. In cases of severe ulcerative keratitis and neurotrophic keratitis, AMT was shown to improve healing outcomes. AMT was also found to be more effective in treating deep stromal ulcers. Additionally, it enhances ocular integrity and promotes anatomical restoration following corneal perforation. Furthermore, AMT demonstrated significant efficacy in treating dry eye disease (DED). When combined with a bandage contact lens, dehydrated AMT was found to reduce symptoms of DED. However, its effectiveness remains limited in certain cases. The study also revealed that amniotic membrane suspension (AM suspension) serves as a non-invasive alternative to conventional AMT. In conclusion, AMT was more effective in managing deep stromal ulcers and neurotrophic keratitis, especially when retained for longer durations. Bandage contact lenses were useful in managing post-surgical epithelial defects and enhancing membrane retention. Future research should investigate long-term outcomes and combined therapy protocols.
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.