ArticleBMJ open2019
Transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal collagen cross-linking for corneal ectasia: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review of the epithelial and stromal effects of corneal collagen crosslinking.The ocular surface · 2023Review
- Short- and long-term safety and efficacy of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCorneal ectasias are progressive, degenerative ocular diseases defined by abnormal structural changes in the cornea, leading to distortion of vision and substantial reduction in quality of life. Corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) increases the biomechanical rigidity of the cornea and has been shown to halt ectatic processes. The established CXL protocol requires removal of the corneal epithelium. However, some surgeons have proposed transepithelial approaches to enhance patient recovery and minimise adverse events. Whether novel transepithelial approaches are as effective in arresting ectasia as the established epithelium-off protocol remains unclear. This study will systematically review the evidence on transepithelial CXL approaches and compare it to the epithelium-off protocol. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing transepithelial and epithelium-off CXL for any corneal ectasia. We will search 16 electronic databases including MEDLINE and Embase, as well as the grey literature. Two reviewers will independently screen search results to identify eligible studies, complete data abstraction and conduct quality assessment. We will assess the quality of individual RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Our primary outcome will be the change in maximal keratometry at 12 months after treatment, and we will examine 11 additional outcomes. We will summarise our analyses by measures of association (relative risk or odds ratio) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted to explore heterogeneity. The overall quality of evidence will be rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review as it draws from previously published data. Results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and discussed at conferences and seminars. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018102069.
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.