ArticleBMJ open2025
Methods for the evaluation of corneal nerve fibres in diabetes mellitus by in vivo confocal microscopy: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Corneal nerve regeneration: treatments and monitoring approaches.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- A novel method for standardised imaging of corneal subbasal nerves by in vivo confocal microscopy - a pilot validation study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Emerging Technologies in Corneal Nerve Evaluation for Dry Eye and Ocular Surface Disease: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Deep learning-based segmentation and density estimation of corneal nerves and dendritic cells from In Vivo confocal microscopy images.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- In Vivo Confocal Microscopy and Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography in Optimizing Diagnosis and Therapeutic Management in Fungal Keratitis: Case Reports and Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo map, summarise and analyse the methodologies of corneal nerve fibre imaging in studies using in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) in diabetes and assess the potential for standardising methods and reporting.
methodsA scoping review was conducted using five databases, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science and Scopus, with search terms related to IVCM, diabetes and corneal nerves. Two researchers independently screened the studies for eligibility. Relevant data were extracted and systematically analysed.
resultsOut of 1533 screened articles, 195 met the inclusion criteria. Spanning from 2000 to 2024, the studies showed high variability in image acquisition, image processing, image analysis and reporting detail. Most studies used laser scanning confocal microscopy, examining the central cornea in both eyes in patients with type 2 diabetes, manually selecting 3-6 images from each eye, and using ACCMetrics and CCMetrics for quantifying corneal nerve fibre length in mm/mm
conclusionIVCM studies of corneal nerve fibres in diabetes show substantial methodological heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting, limiting reproducibility. We propose a guideline to support standardisation and improve the reliability of future research.
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.