Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33049990›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020

Visual and Topographic Improvement with Epithelium-On, Oxygen-Supplemented, Customized Corneal Cross-Linking for Progressive Keratoconus.

Kazutaka Kamiya, Shunsuke Kanayama, Masahide Takahashi, Nobuyuki Shoji

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. [Treatment indications for corneal crosslinking and clinical results of new corneal crosslinking techniques].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kazutaka KamiyaVisual Physiology, School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Kanagawa 252-0373, Japan.
Shunsuke KanayamaDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan.
Masahide TakahashiDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan.
Nobuyuki ShojiDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3719-0376

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Customized cross-linking has been proposed as an alternative to conventional cross-linking in patients with progressive keratoconus, targeting greater flattening of the cone region and improved visual function. Epithelium-on cross-linking aims to reduce complications associated with epithelial removal, while the addition of oxygen aims to maintain treatment effect. Our study evaluates the combination of these novel treatment strategies to achieve a minimally invasive treatment targeting maximal functional outcomes. This prospective study included 42 eyes undergoing epithelium-on, accelerated, oxygen-supplemented, customized corneal cross-linking for progressive keratoconus. Outcome measures, including refraction, visual acuity, and corneal tomography were obtained at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) uncorrected visual acuity was significantly improved, from 0.87 ± 0.53 preoperatively, to 0.78 ± 0.56 1 year postoperatively (Wilcoxon rank sum test,

Indexed as

corneal topographyCuRVcustomized CXLepi-onkeratoconusoxygenvisual acuity

Identifiers

PMID33049990
PMCPMC7600308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.