ArticleInternational ophthalmology2020
Long-term results of accelerated and conventional corneal cross-linking.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pulsed corneal crosslinking in the treatment of Keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Long-term Effects and Prognostic Factors of Accelerated Cross-Linking with Retention Ring-assisted Riboflavin Application on Keratoconus Progression.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2025Article
- Accelerated corneal cross-linking (18mW/cm2 for 5 min) with HPMC-riboflavin in progressive keratoconus - 5 years follow-up.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Independent-effect comparison of five crosslinking procedures for Progressive Keratoconus based on Keratometry and the ABCD Grading System using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE).BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- [Histological changes in keratoconus and wound healing after corneal cross-linking].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022Review
- In Vivo Confocal Microscopy Evaluation in Patients with Keratoconus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to compare the long-term follow-up outcomes of traditional and accelerated corneal cross-linking (CXL) for keratoconus.
methodsThis retrospective comparative cohort study included patients with keratoconus who underwent corneal cross-linking (CXL) between August 2008 and December 2016. Patients treated before August 2013 underwent the traditional Dresden protocol, and those treated subsequently received the accelerated protocol, i.e., 0.1% riboflavin soaking for 10 min, followed by pulsed UV-A irradiation at 30 mW/cm
resultsThis study evaluated 113 eyes over a mean follow-up period of 37.61 ± 16.34 months. It was found that 89.6% and 95.7% of the eyes were successfully treated with the traditional and accelerated protocols, respectively (p = 0.239). The corrected-distance visual acuity improved in both groups, but it was significantly better following the accelerated protocol (p = 0.037). Traditional protocol group had more postoperative complications than the accelerated group (8.9% versus 2%), although not reaching statistically significant difference (p = 0.142). There were no significant differences in the topographic (p = 0.122) and refractive (p = 0.570) outcomes.
conclusionAccelerated CXL and conventional CXL are both safe and effective, and the long-term follow-up showed that the accelerated protocol was similar to the standard one in terms of halting keratoconus and achieving visual outcomes. Because of its potential benefits, the accelerated protocol may be considered for the treatment of progressive keratoconus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32535751What 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.