SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2017
Efficacy and safety of transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking surgery versus standard corneal collagen crosslinking surgery for keratoconus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Transepithelial Versus Epithelium-Off Corneal Crosslinking for Progressive Keratoconus: Findings From a Cochrane Systematic Review.American journal of ophthalmology · 2021Pooled it
- Transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Three-year results of accelerated transepithelial cross-linking (30 mW/cmBMJ open ophthalmology · 2022Trial
- The Science and Clinical Evolution of Corneal Cross-Linking: Mechanism of Action, Ultra-Structural Changes, Clinical Indications, and Emerging Treatment Strategies.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Changes in Corneal Densitometry and Relationship to Corneal Topographical Parameters in Accelerated Corneal Crosslinking for the Treatment of Keratoconus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Transepithelial corneal cross-linking: a review.International ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Precise Epithelium Removal for Ectatic Corneas Technique in Corneal Collagen Crosslinking (PERFECT-CXL): Technique Description and Clinical Outcomes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Ten Years' Experience Using Proxymetacaine Hydrochloride 0.5% for Postoperative Pain Control in Epithelium-Off Corneal Crosslinking.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Accelerated Transepithelial Corneal Crosslinking in Non-Pediatric Patients with Progressive Keratoconus: Insights from a Retrospective Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prevalence of keratoconus and keratoconus suspect, and their characteristics on corneal tomography in a population-based study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Scleral lenses and PROSE: indications, complications, and future challenges.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Review
- Outcomes of Collagen Crosslinking in Patients with Keratoconus and Co-Existent Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Transepithelial Accelerated Crosslinking for Progressive Keratoconus: A Critical Analysis of Medium-Term Treatment Outcomes.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Review
- One-year non-comparative observational study to evaluate corneal tomographic, densitometric, and aberrometric features following accelerated corneal cross-linking in progressive keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2023Observational
- Independent-effect comparison of five crosslinking procedures for Progressive Keratoconus based on Keratometry and the ABCD Grading System using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE).BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Pediatric Crosslinking: Current Protocols and Approach.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Review
- Benefits of using corneal topography to choose subjective refraction technique in keratoconus (RE-CON): a prospective comparative crossover clinical study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022Article
- Dysregulation of Receptor for Advanced Glycation End Products (RAGE) Expression as a Biomarker of Keratoconus.Disease markers · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking (transepithelial CXL) versus standard corneal collagen crosslinking (epithelium-off CXL) on keratoconus.
methodsEligible studies were identified by systematically searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase. Topographic parameters, corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA), and corneal thickness (CT) were assessed by the pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) of the change from baseline to the end of follow up. Quality was assessed according to Cochrane handbook. And we used Review Manager to analysis the included trials.
resultsThree trials involving 244 eyes were evaluated, with 111 eyes in the standard CXL group and 133 eyes in the transepithelial CXL group. The pooled results showed that there were significant differences between the two groups in maximum keratometry (mean difference = 1.05D, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.92, P = 0.02)),and the standard CXL is more effective in decreasing the maximum keratometry at least 12 months after operation; the transepithelial CXL group gained more improvement in CDVA (mean difference = -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02, P = 0.007);there were no significant differences in uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA) between the two groups (mean difference = -0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.15, P = 0.75). A similar change was found in corneal thickness (mean difference = 4.35, 95% CI -0.43 to 9.13, P = 0.07)).
conclusionsThe standard CXL is more effective in decreasing the maximum keratometry than the transepithelial CXL; the transepithelial CXL provided favorable visual outcomes; they both exhibit similar safety.
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.