ArticleThe open ophthalmology journal2017
Contact Lenses for Keratoconus- Current Practice.
Article in The open ophthalmology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proportion and clinical characteristics of keratoconus among patients attending refraction units: a retrospective facility-based study in Malawi.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Impact of rigid contact lens use on visual acuity and vision-related quality of life in keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Scleral lenses and PROSE: indications, complications, and future challenges.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Review
- Experiences of keratoconus patients attending public eye care facilities in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024Article
- Corneal Surface Elevation and Thickness in Relation to the Fit of Rigid Contact Lenses in Keratoconus and After Corneal Cross-Linking.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- A sequential approach to the management of an advanced case of pellucid marginal degeneration.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2023Article
- The Lifetime Expenditure in People with Keratoconus in Saudi Arabia.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Risk Factors for Development of Keratoconus: A Matched Pair Case-Control Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Histological Patterns of Epithelial Alterations in Keratoconus.Journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Short-term visual outcome with sclerocorneal contact lens on irregular cornea.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
- Quantifying contact lens-related changes in keratoconus corneal topographic indices: an updated Pentacam Scheimpflug imaging analysis.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKeratoconus is a chronic, bilateral, usuallly asymmetrical, non-inflammatory, ectatic disorder, being characterized by progressive steepening, thinning and apical scarring of the cornea. Initially, the patient is asymptomatic, but the visual acuity gradually decreases, resulting in significant vision loss due to the development of irregular astigmatism, myopia, corneal thinning and scarring. The classic treatment of visual rehabilitation in keratoconus is based on spectacles and contact lenses (CLs).
objectiveTo summarize the types of CLs used in the treatment of keratoconus. This is literature review of several important published articles focusing on the visual rehabilitation in keratoconus with CLs.
methodGas permeable (GP) CLs have been found to achieve better best corrected visual acuity than spectacles, eliminating 3rd-order coma root-mean-square (RMS) error, 3rd-order RMS, and higher-order RMS. However, they have implicated in reduction of corneal basal epithelial cell and anterior stromal keratocyte densities. Soft CLs seem to provide greater comfort and lower cost, but the low oxygen permeability (if the lens is not a silicone hydrogel), and the inability to mask moderate to severe irregular astigmatism are the main disadvantages of them. On the other hand, scleral CLs ensure stable platforms, which eliminate high-order aberrations and provide good centration and visual acuity. Their main disadvantages include the difficulties in application and removal of these lenses along with corneal flattening and swelling.
resultThe modern hybrid CLs are indicated in cases of poor centration, poor stability or intolerance with GP lenses. Finally, piggyback CL systems effectively ameliorate visual acuity, but they have been related to corneal neovascularization and giant papillary conjunctivitis.
conclusionCLs seem to rehabilitate visual performance, diminishing the power of the cylinder and the high-order aberrations. The final choice of CLs is based on their special features, the subsequent corneal changes and the patient's needs.
Indexed as
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.