ReviewJournal of ophthalmology2014
Theoretical basis, laboratory evidence, and clinical research of chemical surgery of the cornea: cross-linking.
Review in Journal of ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early treatment of bilateral fungal keratitis with corneal cross-linking as adjuvant therapy.Oxford medical case reports · 2020Article
- The Role of Corneal Biomechanics for the Evaluation of Ectasia Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Patient selection for corneal collagen cross-linking: an updated review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Review
- Evaluation of corneal endothelium after UVA/riboflavin cross-linking in thin keratoconic corneas.International journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Corneal cross-linking (CXL) is increasingly performed in ophthalmology with high success rates for progressive keratoconus and other types of ectasia. Despite being an established procedure, some molecular and clinical aspects still require additional studies. This review presents a critical analysis of some established topics and others that are still controversial. In addition, this review examines new technologies and techniques (transepithelial and ultrafast CXL), uses of corneal CXL including natural products and biomolecules as CXL promoters, and evidence for in vitro and in vivo indirect effectiveness.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.