ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of Amniotic Membrane Extract and Insulin Eye Drops for the Management of Persistent Epithelial Defects: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined use of insulin eye drops and cross-linked hyaluronic acid canalicular gel for the management of severe neurotrophic keratopathy.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2026Article
- Topical Insulin for Corneal Persistent Epithelial Defects: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of topical insulin and amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED) in promoting healing of corneal persistent epithelial defects (PEDs) refractory to conventional therapy. Patients and Methods: This retrospective comparative study included 27 eyes of 24 patients (mean age 61.0 ± 16.6 years) with PEDs treated with either topical insulin (1 IU/mL) or AMEED four times daily. Clinical outcomes included complete epithelial closure, rate of epithelialization, change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and occurrence of adverse events. Results: Of 27 eyes, 18 received topical insulin and 9 received AMEED. The mean interval from diagnosis to treatment initiation was 93.4 ± 111.7 days in the AMEED group and 72.5 ± 56.1 days in the insulin group. Complete healing occurred in all eyes (100%) in the insulin group versus 44.4% in the AMEED group. The daily reduction in epithelial defect area during the first two weeks was significantly greater with insulin (P = 0.04). At final follow-up, BCVA improved significantly only in the insulin group (P = 0.006). No adverse reactions were observed in either group; one AMEED-treated eye required amniotic membrane transplantation. Conclusion: Topical insulin and AMEED are both safe and effective for refractory PEDs, but insulin showed superior epithelial healing and visual recovery. Given its availability, low cost, and favorable safety profile, topical insulin may represent a practical alternative in the management of persistent epithelial defects.
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.