ArticleMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2017
Accelerated versus Conventional Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking for Progressive Keratoconus.
Article in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare the effect of accelerated and conventional corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) on visual, refractive, and topographic parameters in patients with progressive keratoconus. Between December 2014 and February 2016, at Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Iran, we compared 37 eyes of 21 patients treated by conventional CXL (CCXL; 3 mW/cm2 in 30 minutes) with 34 eyes of 18 patients treated by accelerated CXL (ACXL; 18 mW/cm2 in 5 minutes) based on generalizing estimation equation analysis in terms of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corneal endothelial cell indices, and topographic parameters before and at 3, 6 and 12 months after the operation. The mean UDVA and spherical equivalent changes were similar in the two groups, but an improvement in CDVA was only observed in the CCXL group (P = 0.003). Keratometry (minimum and maximum) was significantly decreased in the CCXL group (P = 0.043 and P = 0.008, respectively). Indices of keratoconus progression-surface asymmetry index (SAI), keratoconus prediction index (KPI), and keratoconus index (KCI)-were significantly lower in the CCXL group than in the ACXL group (P = 0.002, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). The thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.15). The reduction of corneal endothelial cell density was also similar between the two groups; however, polymorphism and polymegethism were significantly lower in the ACXL group than in the CCXL group. In conclusion, we showed that although ACXL at 18 mW/cm2 slowed keratoconus progression safely during a 1-year follow-up, CCXL at 3 mW/cm2 may be superior in the prevention of keratoconus progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29560364PMC5847305W2978573582What 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.