ArticleCell and tissue banking2026
Loss of quality of corneas stored in hypothermic preservation media during processing and evaluation in an eye bank: a cohort study.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze factors associated with the loss of quality of corneas stored in hypothermic preservation media during processing and evaluation in an eye bank. A cohort study was conducted using records from 422 donors (844 corneas) between January 1, 2022, and March 31, 2024. Corneal quality was determined through slit-lamp biomicroscopy based on 13 morphological criteria, with tissues classified on a Likert-type scale from 0 (excellent) to 4 (unacceptable). For analysis, corneas were grouped as higher quality (scores 0-2: excellent, good, and fair) and lower quality (scores 3-4: poor and unacceptable). The outcome was defined as progression from higher to lower quality between the first and second evaluations. No statistically significant associations were found between donor clinical or sociodemographic variables and progression to lower quality. The relative risk (RR) of progression to the lower-quality group according to the storage medium (Optisol-GS vs Eusol-C) was low, RR 1.01 (95% Confidence Interval: 0.94 - 1.07), possibly due to the short interval between evaluations (≤ 4 days). However, a significant trend toward higher scores was observed during the second evaluation. These findings suggest that donor characteristics, processing factors, and the preservation medium did not significantly influence the deterioration of corneal quality within the analyzed period. The differences observed between the evaluations are possibly related to the subjective nature of slit-lamp assessment rather than true tissue degradation.
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.