SynthesisBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Why take the eye? A systematic review of corneal retrieval methods and donor consent: implications for the UK.
Synthesis in BMJ open 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the effect of the corneal retrieval method on three outcome domains: donor consent rate, tissue quality and microbial contamination.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted using the Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases employing predefined search terms pertinent to corneal retrieval methods, consent rates, tissue quality and microbial contamination. Studies relevant to corneal donation and consent rates as well as reports comparing in situ corneal excision with whole-globe enucleation that evaluated at least one of the three primary outcome domains were included. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
results12 out of 91 studies met the inclusion criteria. In situ corneal excision is associated with higher rates of consent from the family members of the deceased. Corneas harvested via in situ excision were of comparable tissue quality to those obtained from enucleation. Additionally, contamination rates were similar.
conclusionsIn situ excision of corneal tissue may provide a potential advantage in donor acceptance, while offering comparable tissue quality and microbial safety.
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.