Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39939391›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2025

Navigating the path to corneal healing success and challenges: a comprehensive overview.

Athar Shadmani, Albert Y Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Neurotrophic keratopathy patients after minimally invasive corneal neurotization treated with RhNGF eyedrops: a case series.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Athar ShadmaniBascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Naples, FL, USA.
Albert Y WuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. awu1@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1360-8248

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cornea serves to protect the eye from external insults and refracts light to the retina. Maintaining ocular homeostasis requires constant epithelial renewal and an efficient healing process following injury. Corneal wound healing is a dynamic process involving several key cell populations and molecular pathways. Immediately after a large corneal epithelial injury involving limbal stem cells, conjunctival epithelial cells migrate toward the center of the wound guided by the newly formed electrical field (EF). Proliferation and transdifferentiation play a critical role in corneal epithelial regeneration. Corneal nerve endings migrate through the EF, connect with the migrating epithelial cells, and provide them with multiple growth factors. Finally, the migrated epithelial cells undergo differentiation, which is also regulated by corneal nerve endings. All these processes require energy and effective cellular cross-talk between different cell lines and extracellular matrix molecules. We provide an overview of the roles and interactions between corneal wound regeneration components that may help develop fascinating new targeted therapeutic strategies to enhance corneal wound healing with less injury-related corneal opacity and neovascularization.

Indexed as

CorneaCorneal InjuriesEpithelium, CornealWound HealingAnimalsCell MovementHumansRegenerationStem Cells

Identifiers

PMID39939391
PMCPMC11978883

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.