ArticleCell and tissue banking2026
Stages and costs of processing donated corneas for transplantation in eye banks: a scoping review.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective was to map the stages and costs of processing donated corneal tissue for transplantation in Eye Banks. The method followed the JBI Institute Reviewer's Manual, and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines were adopted for reporting, to answer the question: "What are the stages and costs of processing donated corneal tissue for transplantation in Eye Banks?" Studies considered for inclusion comprised qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method, observational, experimental, quasi-experimental studies, reviews, institutional documents, manuals, theses, and dissertations, all available in full text and open access, with no restrictions on language or publication period. Information sources included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), the Virtual Health Library, and gray literature databases. The systematic search resulted in the final inclusion of seven studies. The results identified an operational workflow comprising three main phases: corneal selection and recovery, processing and evaluation, and the pre-surgical stage. The review revealed extensive variation in evaluation and discard/disqualification protocols across institutions and countries, especially in those with decentralized regulation. A lack of cost analyses and economic data was identified. In conclusion, although the processing workflow was mapped, the lack of protocol uniformity and, above all, the absence of cost data limit the understanding of financial impact and the sustainability of Eye Banks, reinforcing the need for future research with an economic focus and the development of standardized indicators.
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.