The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk Factors for Corneal Graft Failure and Rejection in the Collaborative Corneal Transplantation Studies
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate comprehensively the magnitude of suspected risk factors for corneal graft failure from any cause, failure from rejection, and immunologic reaction in patients at high risk for graft failure after corneal transplantation. METHODS: The records of the 457 participants in the Collaborative Corneal Transplantation Studies were reviewed. All participants had at least two quadrants of stromal vascularization and/or a history or previous graft rejection. Patients were followed for 2 to 5 years. Characteristics of the patient, study eye, donor, donor-recipient histocompatibility, and surgical procedure were examined for their association with the graft outcomes of failure from any cause, rejection failure, and immunologic reaction. Multivariate survival analysis techniques were used to estimate rates of graft outcome events and to estimate the magnitude of risk factors. RESULTS: Many apparent risk factors did not maintain their association with graft outcomes after adjustment for other risk factors. Young recipient age, the number of previous grafts, history of previous anterior segment surgery, preoperative glaucoma, quadrants of anterior synechiae, quadrants of stromal vessels, a primary diagnosis of chemical burn, and blood group ABO incompatibility were among the strongest risk factors identified for graft failure. Donor and corneal preservation characteristics had little influence on graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of graft failure varies substantially, even within a high-risk population. The number of risk factors present should be considered by the patient and surgeon when contemplating transplantation and planning follow-up.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · Cited by 39,158
Cited by
Cursiefen, C., Cao, J., Chen, L., Liu, Y., Maruyama, K., Jackson, D., Kruse, F. E., Wiegand, S. J., Dana, M. R., & Streilein, J. W. (2004) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.03-1380 · Cited by 329
Hos, D., Matthaei, M., Bock, F., Maruyama, K., Notara, M., Clahsen, T., Hou, Y., Le, V. N. H., Salabarria, A.-C., Horstmann, J., et al. (2019) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.07.001 · Cited by 303
Wei, C., Wang, Y., Ma, L., Wang, X., Chi, H., Zhang, S., Liu, T., Li, Z., Xiang, D., Dong, Y., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.02283 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Maguire, M. G., Stark, W. J., Gottsch, J. D., Stulting, R. D., Sugar, A., Fink, N. E., & Schwartz, A.
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1994-09
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1536-1547
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2020801013
- Cited by
- 466
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk Factors for Corneal Graft Failure and Rejection in the Collaborative Corneal Transplantation Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31138-9
- The paper
- Maguire, M. G., Stark, W. J., Gottsch, J. D., Stulting, R. D., Sugar, A., Fink, N. E., & Schwartz, A. (1994). Risk Factors for Corneal Graft Failure and Rejection in the Collaborative Corneal Transplantation Studies. Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31138-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.