ReviewJournal of ophthalmology2017
Surgical Options for the Refractive Correction of Keratoconus: Myth or Reality.
Review in Journal of ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges in Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Keratoconus: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The microenvironment of ocular surface in keratoconus: a systematic review.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Review
- Comprehensive Evaluation of the Genetic Basis of Keratoconus: New Perspectives for Clinical Translation.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Management of keratoconus: an updated review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Outcomes and complications of implantable collamer lens for mild to advance keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Scheimpflug imaging of the anterior segment following simultaneous cross-linking with topography-guided custom ablation treatment for keratoconus.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2021Article
- Intracorneal ring segments followed by toric pseudoaccomodating IOL for treatment of patients with corneal ectasia and cataract.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2020Article
- Visual and refractive outcomes of posterior chamber phakic IOL in stable keratoconus.International journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Keratoconus provides a decrease of quality of life to the patients who suffer from it. The treatment used as well as the method to correct the refractive error of these patients may influence on the impact of the disease on their quality of life. The purpose of this review is to describe the evidence about the conservative surgical treatment for keratoconus aiming to therapeutic and refractive effect. The visual rehabilitation for keratoconic corneas requires addressing three concerns: halting the ectatic process, improving corneal shape, and minimizing the residual refractive error. Cross-linking can halt the disease progression, intrastromal corneal ring segments can improve the corneal shape and hence the visual quality and reduce the refractive error, PRK can correct mild-moderate refractive error, and intraocular lenses can correct from low to high refractive error associated with keratoconus. Any of these surgical options can be performed alone or combined with the other techniques depending on what the case requires. Although it could be considered that the surgical option for the refracto-therapeutic treatment of the keratoconus is a reality, controlled, randomized studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are needed to determine which refractive procedure and/or sequence are most suitable for each case.
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.