SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Corneal
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel method for standardised imaging of corneal subbasal nerves by in vivo confocal microscopy - a pilot validation study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Corneal Innervation Research at a Crossroads: A Tool-Driven Roadmap for the Future.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Review
- Clusterin reverses epitheliopathy, reduces inflammation, and restores goblet cells and corneal nerves in a mouse model of autoimmune dry eye.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Corneal confocal microscopy: a novel biomarker of small fibre neuropathy in SLE.Lupus science & medicine · 2025Article
- Mooren's ulcer: a multifactorial autoimmune peripheral ulcerative keratitis and current treatment protocols.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Changes in the morphology and function of the sub-basal corneal nerve plexus after accelerated corneal cross-linking: A one-year follow-up study.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the features of corneal nerve with Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published until May 2021. The weighted mean differences (WMDs) of corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL), corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), corneal nerve branch density (CNBD), tortuosity, reflectivity, and beadings per 100 μm with a 95% CI between NNAI and control group were analyzed using a random-effects model. Results: The results showed 37 studies involving collective totals of 1,423 patients and 1,059 healthy controls were ultimately included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results manifested significantly decreased CNFL (WMD: -3.94, 95% CI: -4.77--3.12), CNFD (WMD: -6.62, 95% CI: -8.4--4.85), and CNBD (WMD: -9.89, 95% CI: -14--5.79) in NNAI patients. In addition, the NNAI group showed more tortuous corneal nerve (WMD: 1.19, 95% CI:0.57-1.81). The comparison between NNAI patients and healthy controls in beadings per 100 μm corneal nerve length was inconsistent. No significant difference was found in the corneal nerve fiber reflectivity between NNAI and the control group (WMD: -0.21, 95% CI: -0.65-0.24, Conclusions: The parameters and morphology of corneal nerves observed by IVCM proved to be different in NNAI patients from healthy controls, suggesting that IVCM may be a non-invasive technique for identification and surveillance of NNAI diseases.
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.