ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Therapeutic Outcomes of Shelf-Stable, Cryopreserved Amniotic Membrane in Recalcitrant Keratopathy.
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.
- Management of Stage 1 Neurotrophic Keratopathy with Shelf-Stable, Cryopreserved Amniotic Membrane: A Retrospective Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Adjunctive Cryopreserved Amniotic Membrane for Recalcitrant Keratopathy: Long-Term Outcomes with Maintenance Therapy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Keratopathy can be caused by multiple factors including neuropathy, inflammation, radiation, among others. Amniotic membrane (AM) is known to have anti-inflammatory and anti-scarring properties, which helps promote epithelialization. Herein, we assessed application of AM to promote epithelialization in the treatment of recalcitrant keratopathy. Patients and Methods: A single-center, retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients with recalcitrant keratopathy that failed to respond to conservative treatment who were subsequently treated with shelf-stable cryopreserved AM. Corneal staining, corneal sensitivity, tear osmolarity, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and complications were assessed before treatment as well as one-week, one-month, and three-months post-treatment. Results: A total of 34 eyes of 18 subjects were included in the analysis. All eyes were diagnosed with recalcitrant keratopathy (n=34), of which 7 (20.6%) eyes had reduced corneal sensation. Eyes were treated with shelf-stable AM for an average of 2.0 ± 0.6 days. Corneal staining scores significantly improved from 1.52 ± 0.68 at baseline to 0.50 ± 0.85 at 1 week (p=0.01), 0.25 ± 0.43 at 1 month (p<0.001), and 0.47 ± 0.91 at 3 months (p=0.007). The percentage of eyes with no corneal staining was 70.0% at 1-week, 72.7% at 1-month, and 73.7% at 3-months. Corneal sensitivity improved from 2.3 ± 1.4 at baseline to 1.6 ± 0.9 at 1 week (p=0.31), 1.38 ± 0.7 at 1 month (p<0.001), and 1.11 ± 0.32 at 3 months (p=0.002). UCVA changed from 0.24 ± 0.26 at baseline to 0.14 ± 0.16 at 1 week (p=0.41), 0.18 ± 0.23 at 1 month (p=0.013), and 0.11 ± 0.08 at 3 months (p=0.08). Tear osmolarity did not significantly change from baseline at any timepoint. No complications or adverse events were noted. Conclusion: Shelf-stable cryopreserved AM transplantation led to a significant improvement in corneal epithelization, corneal sensitivity, and visual acuity in patients with recalcitrant keratopathy.
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.