SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2019
The efficacy of standard versus accelerated epi-off corneal cross-linking protocols: a systematic review and sub-group analysis.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2019. 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.
- Efficacy of customized corneal crosslinking versus standard corneal crosslinking in patients with progressive keratoconus (C-CROSS study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Risk factors for progression following corneal collagen crosslinking in keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Accelerated and Standard Corneal Cross-Linking Protocols in Patients with Down Syndrome: A Non-inferiority Contralateral Randomized Trial.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the one-year efficacy of accelerated and standard 5.4 J/cm
methodsIn this systematic review, two members of the research team searched Scopus, Pubmed, ISI, Ovid, Science Direct, and Cochrane databases independently for publications between January 2010 and December 2016. The majority of retrieved studies were not randomized clinical trials (RCT), or the second arm of the RCT was either untreated or customized CXL. The outcomes of interest were uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected visual acuity, manifest refraction spherical equivalent, maximum keratometry in the central 3 mm, minimum keratometry in the central 3 mm, and corneal thickness in the apex or thinnest point at baseline and 1 year after CXL.
resultsOf the 453 papers found in the preliminary search, 23 papers were included in the final analysis. Analysis of variance of one-year changes showed that longer irradiation times were associated with a greater corneal flattening effect, although there was no difference in terms of improvement in vision or refraction.
conclusionsIn other words, efficacy is comparable among different CXL protocols, so it is recommended to use the standard method in cases where maximum flattening is expected, such as young people and severe cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31222533What 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.