SynthesisCell and tissue banking2025
Eye bank pre-stripped versus surgeon-stripped graft for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cell and tissue banking, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To summarize the evidence examining the outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) using eye bank pre-stripped versus surgeon prepared grafts. Systematic review and meta-analysis. This study was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses consensus statement (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023457120). Searches of medline (Ovid), EMBASE, EMCARE, the Cochrane register of controlled trials, and grey literature were performed until April 2025. All comparative studies comparing DMEK outcomes after eye bank prepared (pre-stripped only) with surgeon-prepared tissue were included. Two independent reviewers completed data extraction and performed quality assessments. The primary outcomes were the rebubbling rate and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). Results were summarized using a random-effects meta-analysis. Five studies totalling 750 eyes receiving DMEK grafts were included. Four were retrospective observational studies and one was a non-randomized prospective study. There were no significant differences between eye bank pre-stripped and surgeon-prepared graft outcomes with regards to rebubbling rate (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 1.90) and postoperative logMAR CDVA (mean difference - 0.11, 95% CI - 0.23 to 0.01). No statistically significant difference was noted in postoperative corneal thickness, endothelial cell loss or density, and postoperative complications.Eye bank pre-stripped grafts and surgeon-prepared grafts yield comparable outcomes in terms of CDVA and rebubbling rates following DMEK.However, there is limited evidence, as only five studies were included in this analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40920258What 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.