ReviewClinical diabetes and endocrinology2024
Specular microscopy findings in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Clinical diabetes and endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cornea Oculomics: A Clinical Blueprint for Extending Corneal Diagnostics and Artificial Intelligence in Systemic Health Insights.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the specular microscopy findings in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic search with the appropriate keyword was done in the online databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences. The records were imported into EndNote software and duplicated records were removed. The title, abstract, and full text of the articles were evaluated carefully. STATA software also was used for all data analyses. The mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to examine the data.
resultsAfter a systematic search, 781 records were evaluated and finally, 14 of them were selected for final analysis. The results showed that the mean differences in average cell size (MD = 21.22, 95% CI 10.43, 32.01, P 0.001), central corneal thickness (MD = 9.90, 95% CI 6.07, 13.73, P 0.001), and coefficient of variation (MD = 1.11, 95% CI 0.11, 2.11, P = 0.03) were higher in diabetic patients in comparison with healthy cases. However, the mean differences in endothelial cell density (MD = -114.29, 95% CI -158.34, -70.24, P 0.001) and hexagonal cell ratio (MD = -3.52, 95% CI -5.79, -1.25, P < 0.001) were lower in diabetic cases.
conclusionsPatients with DM have higher average cell size, corneal thickness, and coefficient of variation. On the other hand, the endothelial cell density and hexagonal cell ratio were reduced in diabetic cases.
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.