ArticleBioMed research international2019
Whether Keratectasia Area Shown in Corneal Topography Is Appropriate for Evaluating the Effect of Corneal Cross-Linking for Keratoconus: A 12-Month Follow-Up Study.
Article in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A novel analysis of Scheimpflug total corneal refractive power following corneal cross-linking in mild to moderate keratoconus.International journal of ophthalmology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the keratectasia area (KEA) shown in corneal topography before and after corneal cross-linking (CXL) in patients with progressive keratoconus (KC) and figure out whether KEA is appropriate for evaluating the effect of CXL.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted in 34 eyes from 24 progressive KC patients who have underwent CXL from 2015 to 2017. Area with
resultsLinear regression model revealed the KEA,
conclusionsThe KEA is more sensitive than
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.