Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29185116›Full record

ArticleInternational ophthalmology2018

Standard, transepithelial and iontophoresis corneal cross-linking: clinical analysis of three surgical techniques.

Settimio Rossi, Carmine Santamaria, Rosa Boccia, Luigi De Rosa, Francesco Maria D'Alterio, Francesca Simonelli, Giuseppe De Rosa

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Epithelium-on versus epithelium-off corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Transepithelial corneal cross-linking: a review.International ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Settimio RossiEye Clinic, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. settimio.rossi@unicampania.it.
Carmine SantamariaDay Surgery Center - Refractive Surgery, Naples, Italy.
Rosa BocciaEye Clinic, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Luigi De RosaEye Clinic, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Francesco Maria D'AlterioEye Clinic, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Francesca SimonelliEye Clinic, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe De RosaEye Clinic, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the clinical results of standard, transepithelial (TE) and iontophoresis (I) corneal cross-linking (CXL), in patients with progressive keratoconus.

methodsThirty eyes of 30 patients with progressive keratoconus treated by CXL (10 by standard-CXL, 10 by TE-CXL and 10 by I-TE-CXL) with 12 months of follow-up. Pre- and postoperative ophthalmologic testing were: uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refractive examination (spherical error, spherical equivalent), corneal topography (corneal astigmatism, simulated maximum, minimum and average keratometry), aberrometry (coma and spherical aberration), pachymetry and endothelial cell density.

resultsIn all groups, UDVA and CDVA improved significantly after treatment. Furthermore, a significant improvement in spherical error, spherical equivalent, topographic and aberrometric outcomes was observed in 3 groups at 1 year posttreatment. No significant variations were recorded in corneal thickness and endothelial cellular density.

conclusionOur results showed efficacy, clinical and refractive stability after standard-CXL, TE-CXL and iontophoresis-CXL.

Indexed as

AdultAnalysis of VarianceCorneaCross-Linking ReagentsDebridementFemaleHumansIontophoresisKeratoconusMalePhotochemotherapyPhotosensitizing AgentsRefraction, OcularVisual AcuityYoung AdultCross-Linking ReagentsPhotosensitizing AgentsCorneal cross-linkingCorneal diseaseCorneal topographyIontophoresisKeratoconus

Identifiers

PMID29185116
OpenAlexW2769509012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.