ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2018
Corneal crosslinking for keratoconus in Japanese populations: one year outcomes and a comparison between conventional and accelerated procedures.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Outcome of accelerated corneal cross-linking with 0.25% riboflavin in progressive keratoconus patients.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Reproducibility and Screening Capability of Corneal Epithelial Thickness Measurement for Keratoconus Using Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Screening of Keratoconus Using Autokeratometer and Keratometer Keratoconus Index.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2021Review
- Trends in surgical procedures and indications for corneal transplantation over 27 years in a tertiary hospital in Japan.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Comparison of Two Different Accelerated Corneal Cross-linking Procedure Outcomes in Patients with KeratoconusBalkan medical journal · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe retrospectively investigated the efficacy of corneal crosslinking (CXL) on progressive keratoconus in a Japanese population and compared the outcomes of conventional and accelerated CXL. STUDY
designA retrospective cohort study
methodsA total of 108 consecutive eyes in 95 patients (75 men; 21.9 ± 6.2 years) with progressive keratoconus were enrolled. The epithelium was ablated in all eyes. After presoaking the corneal stroma in riboflavin, UV-A was irradiated at 3.0 mW/cm
resultsBSCVA, manifest refraction, ECD, and corneal thickness did not change significantly after both procedures. The keratometric value was significantly decreased from the preoperative value at 12 months (p < 0.001). Progression to more than 1.0 D after CXL was observed in 10 eyes (9.3%). The ΔKmax was negatively associated with preoperative Kmax (p < 0.001) and positively associated with preoperative thinnest corneal thickness (p < 0.001). Both treatment modules showed no significant difference in all parameters.
conclusionCXL was as effective in treating keratoconus in Japanese patients as in individuals of other ethnicities. Overall, CXL could be performed using either the conventional or accelerated approach to halt the progression of keratoconus in Japanese populations.
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.