ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2018
Expert practice patterns and opinions on corneal cross-linking for infectious keratitis.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Survey of Current Approaches to the Management of Neuropathic Corneal Pain by Experts.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Combined Photoactivated Chromophore for Infectious Keratitis-Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking (PACK-CXL) and Therapeutic Penetrating Keratoplasty for Resistant Bacterial Keratitis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Enzymatic Digestion of Porcine Corneas Cross-linked by Hypo- and Hyperosmolar Formulations of Riboflavin/ultraviolet A or WST11/Near-Infrared Light.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the current opinion and practice patterns from cornea experts regarding the benefit of corneal cross-linking (CXL) for infectious keratitis (IK). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An international survey was distributed to corneal specialists via an internet survey. The survey data collected were analysed with descriptive statistics.
resultsA survey was sent to 190 recipients, and 29 (15%) respondents completed the survey with an average of 7 years' experience using CXL. A majority of respondents (66%) used CXL to treat IK due to bacterial, fungal, protozoan or unknown aetiology. Main indications to use CXL as adjuvant therapy were worsening infiltrate diameter or depth despite therapy (74%), followed by antibiotic resistance (68%), corneal thinning (53%), poor compliance with medication (26%) and other reasons (21%). Most respondents felt CXL would be at least moderately helpful as an adjuvant therapy for bacterial (96%) or fungal (75%) keratitis; about half (46%) thought it would be helpful for acanthamoeba keratitis. As sole therapy, fewer respondents believed CXL would be at least moderately helpful to treat bacterial (75%), fungal (58%) and acanthamoeba (43%) keratitis.
conclusionThe survey offered insights into current expert practices and opinions of using CXL as therapy for IK. The results of this survey serve to guide in the design of future clinical studies.
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.