Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41835781›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Scratching the Surface: Re-evaluating the Management of Corneal Abrasions.

Caitlyn M Cooper, Erich Berg, John Ashurst

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Caitlyn M CooperResearch, Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, Glendale, USA.
Erich BergOphthalmology, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA.
John AshurstResearch, Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, Glendale, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This narrative review examines the current evidence on the pathophysiology, clinical evaluation, and management of corneal abrasions, while highlighting areas of variability and ongoing controversy in clinical practice. Corneal abrasions are among the most common causes of ocular pain presenting to emergency departments. Although often self-limited, delayed diagnosis or inappropriate management can result in serious complications, including infectious keratitis, corneal ulceration, and permanent vision loss. These injuries are managed by multiple healthcare specialties, including emergency medicine, primary care, optometry, and ophthalmology, which may contribute to the variability in treatment approaches and the lack of standardized, evidence-based protocols. Diagnosis is primarily clinical and relies on careful history, visual acuity assessment, fluorescein staining, and exclusion of penetrating injury or infection. Management options include topical antibiotics, oral and topical analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cycloplegics, bandage contact lenses, and supportive care. However, many commonly used interventions lack robust prospective evidence, and practice patterns vary widely. A key area of controversy involves the outpatient use of topical anesthetic agents for pain control. While limited short-term use has been proposed in selected settings, concerns persist regarding epithelial toxicity, adherence, and patient safety. This review synthesizes perspectives across specialties to delineate areas of agreement and uncertainty, highlighting the need for high-quality clinical studies with standardized outcomes to inform evidence-based management of corneal abrasions.

Indexed as

corneal abrasioncorneal epithelial healingemergency ophthalmologyocular traumatopical anesthetics

Identifiers

PMID41835781
PMCPMC12981202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.