MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412040312 · doi:10.7759/cureus.87260

The Role of Bandage Contact Lenses Versus Amniotic Membrane in Corneal Wound Healing: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4412040312 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zohair Khouqeer, Safaa Medani, Zeinab E Elbashir Abdelgadir, Zayed M. Alnefaie

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBandageWound healingOphthalmologyContact lensSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corneal wound healing plays a vital role in restoring ocular surface integrity following injury or disease. Both bandage contact lenses (BCLs) and amniotic membranes (AM) are non-pharmacologic interventions widely used in ocular surface disease management. This systematic review focuses on presenting high-level clinical evidence supporting the effectiveness of bandage contact lenses versus amniotic membrane in corneal wound healing. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching five medical databases for relevant scholarly papers. The search was limited to studies published from January 2010 to March 2024. These databases included PUBMED, Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. The study assessed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and prospective studies involving patients with corneal ulcers. It included studies that reported outcomes such as corneal opacity density, neovascularization, and the healing period of epithelial defects. Two independent, experienced researchers screened the extracted papers for potential inclusion, and in cases of disagreement, they engaged in discussions to resolve the issue. Relevant data were extracted from the selected studies using a structured data collection form. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias in clinical trials and randomized controlled trials, while the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was applied to assess prospective/retrospective, cross-sectional, and cohort studies. The results of the study indicate that BCLs and amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) are safe and effective treatments for dry eye disease and corneal lesions. In cases of severe ulcerative keratitis and neurotrophic keratitis, AMT was shown to improve healing outcomes. AMT was also found to be more effective in treating deep stromal ulcers. Additionally, it enhances ocular integrity and promotes anatomical restoration following corneal perforation. Furthermore, AMT demonstrated significant efficacy in treating dry eye disease (DED). When combined with a bandage contact lens, dehydrated AMT was found to reduce symptoms of DED. However, its effectiveness remains limited in certain cases. The study also revealed that amniotic membrane suspension (AM suspension) serves as a non-invasive alternative to conventional AMT. In conclusion, AMT was more effective in managing deep stromal ulcers and neurotrophic keratitis, especially when retained for longer durations. Bandage contact lenses were useful in managing post-surgical epithelial defects and enhancing membrane retention. Future research should investigate long-term outcomes and combined therapy protocols.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207