Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26665102›Full record

ReviewEye and vision (London, England)2015

Collagen cross-linking: when and how? A review of the state of the art of the technique and new perspectives.

Leonardo Mastropasqua

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye and vision (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Trends in the Management of Keratoconus in Australia.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leonardo MastropasquaOphthalmology Department, Policlinico SS Annunziata, Center of Excellence and National High-Tech Center (CNAT) in Ophthalmology, University "G. d'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Via dei Vestini, 31 66100 Chieti, Italy.
University of Chieti-Pescara · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the late 1990s corneal crosslinking (CXL) has been proposed as a new possibility to stop progression of keratoconus or secondary corneal ectasia, with the promising aim to prevent progressive visual loss due to the evolution of the pathology and to delay or avoid invasive surgical procedures such as corneal transplantation. The possibility of strengthening corneal tissue by means of a photochemical reaction of corneal collagen by the combined action of Riboflavin and ultraviolet A irradiation (UVA), radically modified the conservative management of progressive corneal ectasia. This is a review of the state of the art of CXL, reporting basic and clinical evidence. The paper describes basic principles, advantages and limits of different CXL techniques and possible future evolution of the procedure.

Indexed as

Collagen corneal cross-linking epithelium offCollagen corneal cross-linking epithelium onCollagen cross-linkingEctasiaKeratoconusTransepithelial cross-linkingTransepithelial cross-linking with iontophoresis

Identifiers

PMID26665102
PMCPMC4675057
OpenAlexW2202530251

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.