ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Defining Criteria for Choosing Corneal Neurotization in Neurotrophic Keratopathy: A Systematic Review Along with Practical Advices.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To identify and harmonize preoperative inclusion and exclusion criteria for corneal neurotization (CN) in neurotrophic keratopathy (NK), describe how consistently they are reported, and summarize practical, clinic-ready guidance for selection and follow-up. Methods: Systematic review (PRISMA-2020; PROSPERO CRD420251117787) of human studies on CN for NK (databases searched July 18, 2025). Study-level eligibility criteria, disease stage, esthesiometry, chronicity thresholds, donor-nerve requirements, and stated exclusions were evaluated; risk of bias (ROBINS-I) and certainty (GRADE) were recorded. Results: Thirty-six studies (380 patients) were included; of these, 26 (72.2%) explicitly reported eligibility criteria. Most common inclusion criteria were refractory NK (92.3%), severe/objective corneal anaesthesia or Mackie III severity stage (69.2%), NK with intact donor territory (50.0%), and corneal epithelial instability (46.2%). Exclusion criteria were often not stated (76.9%); when present, they most often listed active infection/non-NK disease (38.5%), systemic unsuitability (34.6%), absent/abnormal donor nerve(s) (15.4%), and severe limbal stem cell deficiency (15.4%). Across studies, CN improved corneal protection and surface stability with sensory recovery over ~6-18 months and in vivo confocal microscopy evidence of nerve regrowth; visual acuity changes were variable. No randomized clinical trials were found; ROBINS-I was commonly moderate to serious, and overall certainty by GRADE was low. Conclusions: This systematic review defined and harmonized preoperative inclusion and exclusion criteria for CN in NK. A minimum preoperative dataset, including disease stage, mapped corneal sensitivity, denervation timeline and etiology, donor-dermatome integrity, feasibility of tension-free coaptation, and ocular surface status, may guide referral timing, donor-feasibility-driven technique selection, and structured follow-up.
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.