ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2020
Comparative 2-year outcomes of conventional and accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking in progressive keratoconus.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review of the epithelial and stromal effects of corneal collagen crosslinking.The ocular surface · 2023Review
- Network meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety of different protocols of corneal cross-linking for the treatment of progressive keratoconus.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Review
- A novel analysis of Scheimpflug total corneal refractive power following corneal cross-linking in mild to moderate keratoconus.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the safety and efficacy of conventional versus accelerated (9 mW/cm
methodsIn this prospective study, consecutive progressive keratoconus patients were randomized to receive either conventional CXL (CCXL) or accelerated CXL (ACXL; using hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-assisted riboflavin imbibition for 10min at 9 mW/cm
resultsThirty-two eyes from 32 patients in the CCXL and 27 eyes from 27 patients in the ACXL groups completed 2-year follow-up. At 2y post-CXL, both uncorrected and corrected visual acuities improved significantly in both groups. The improvements in keratometric readings, flattening rate (flattening of the maximum keratometry more than 1 D), 3 topographic indices, and vertical coma were significantly better in the CCXL group compared to the ACXL group (
conclusionIn this prospective randomized study, ACXL is less effective in halting the progression of keratoconus at a 2-year follow-up compared to CCXL.
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.