ReviewAdvances in therapy2020
Revisiting Existing Evidence of Corneal Endothelial Progenitors and Their Potential Therapeutic Applications in Corneal Endothelial Dysfunction.
Review in Advances in therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scaffold-free cell sheet therapies: clinical advances, global approval landscapes, and strategic directions to address regenerative medicine barriers.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Review
- The hiPSC-derived corneal endothelial progenitor-like cell recovers the rabbit model of corneal endothelial dystrophy.Journal of advanced research · 2025Article
- Profile of biological characterizations and clinical application of corneal stem/progenitor cells.World journal of stem cells · 2022Review
- 3D engineering for optic neuropathy treatment.Drug discovery today · 2021Review
- Long-Term Observation and Sequencing Analysis of SKPs-Derived Corneal Endothelial Cell-Like Cells for Treating Corneal Endothelial Dysfunction.Cell transplantationArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA recent successful clinical trial demonstrated that a less invasive cell-injection procedure is a viable medical modality for treating corneal endothelial dystrophy. This medical advance still relies on human corneal endothelial cell (HCEC) sources derived from rare cornea donations. The progenitor of the corneal endothelium, which has the characteristics of active proliferation and lineage restriction, will be an ideal cell source for expansion ex vivo. However, the distribution of progenitor-like cells in the corneal endothelial sheet has been under debate for more than a decade.
methodsThis paper re-examines the scientific evidence of the existence of human corneal endothelial progenitors (HCEPs) from the aspects of (1) the origin of cornea formation during ocular development, (2) manifestations from clinical studies, and (3) the distinctive properties of ex vivo-cultured subpopulations.
resultsThe discrepancies regarding different types of progenitor-like cells in various locations of the cornea are based on the fact that the corneal endothelium is derived from different cell types with multiple origins during corneal formation.
conclusionsResolving this long-standing issue in corneal biology will enable various types of progenitors to be isolated and their potencies regarding the formation of functional endothelial cells to be examined. Additionally, an effective niche system for quantitatively producing therapeutic cells can be formulated to satisfy the burning need associated with corneal endothelial dystrophy in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.