ArticleBalkan medical journal2020
Comparison of Two Different Accelerated Corneal Cross-linking Procedure Outcomes in Patients with Keratoconus
Article in Balkan medical journal, 2020. 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.
- Short-term retinal microvascular and structural changes after epi-on and epi-off corneal cross-linking assessed by SD-OCTA.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Effect of accelerated high-fluence riboflavin and rose bengal-mediated corneal cross-linking on resistance to enzymatic digestion.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Keratoconus: imaging modalities and management.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2024Review
- Accelerated versus Standard Corneal Cross-linking for Progressive Keratoconus in Syria.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchArticle
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
Background: Corneal cross-linking treatment is the unique treatment method that can cease the progression of keratoconus disease. Because of the long duration of conventional treatment, accelerated cross-linking treatment methods are being developed. Aims: To compare two different accelerated corneal cross-linking protocols in terms of postoperative visual acuity and topographic findings (higher-order aberrations and keratometry values). Study Design: Retrospective comparative study. Methods: Sixty-five eyes of 43 patients (30 men and 13 women) who underwent two different accelerated corneal cross-linking protocols (10 min, 9 mW/cm Results: In both groups, a significant improvement was detected in the uncorrected visual acuity and best-corrected visual acuity levels preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively (group 1: p=0.001, p=0.001 and group 2: p=0.001, p=0.001, respectively). In addition, central corneal thickness values decreased significantly in both groups (p=0.006 and 0.001). Trefoil values showed no significant difference preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively in group 1 (p=0.160 and 0.620, respectively). In groups 1 and 2, coma values were found to decrease significantly in the 6 Conclusion: Both accelerated corneal cross-linking procedures provide similar improvement in topographic findings, coma values and visual acuity.
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.