ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2019
Accelerated versus standard corneal cross linking in the treatment of ectasia post refractive surgery and penetrating keratoplasty: a medium term randomized trial.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The microenvironment of ocular surface in keratoconus: a systematic review.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Epi-On vs Epi-Off Corneal Cross-Linking in Corneal Ectasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Corneal Collagen Crosslinking for Ectasia After Refractive Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Effect of sodium fluorescein strip application on cornea parameters commonly used in laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the clinical outcomes of the standard corneal cross linking (CXL) and the accelerated CXL in patients with progressive corneal ectasia post refractive surgery and penetrating keratoplasty.
methodsTotally 120 eyes of 83 patients scheduled to receive either standard CXL (3 mW/cm
resultsOne hundred and eleven eyes completed the study. The main outcome measurement was the K-max reading. Both group showed significant improvement in the value postoperatively at 6 and 12mo. The mean change in the standard group was 1.21±0.11 D and in the accelerated group was 0.90±0.05 D at the end of 12mo postoperatively, with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Similarly, CDVA improved significantly from their preoperative value in the standard group by 2.98±0.11 letters, and in the accelerated group by 2.20±0.06 letters, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Both of the SE, and CCT showed no statistically significant difference at the end of follow up period in each group.
conclusionBoth standard CXL and accelerated CXL are safe and effective treatment in halting ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. The accelerated CXL results are comparable to the standard CXL with short time exposure of the cornea to ultraviolet irradiation, leading to reduced operation time, reduced operative ocular discomfort, and corneal haze.
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.