ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2021
Comparison of Standard and Transepithelial Corneal Cross-Linking for the Treatment of Keratoconus: A Meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Science and Clinical Evolution of Corneal Cross-Linking: Mechanism of Action, Ultra-Structural Changes, Clinical Indications, and Emerging Treatment Strategies.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Corneal Cross-Linking in Keratoconus: Comparative Analysis of Standard, Accelerated and Transepithelial Protocols.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-Up of Keratoconus Patients.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Long-term outcomes after high-energy accelerated pulsed corneal cross-linking (15 mW/cmInternational ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Enhanced Riboflavin Stromal Delivery Using Microchannel-Assisted Iontophoresis for Corneal Crosslinking.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Could Automated Objective Measurements Acquired at the Preoperative Stage Estimate the Corrected Distance Visual Acuity after Corneal Cross-Linking in Keratoconus?Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- The Impact of Standard Cross-Linking on the Corneal Optical Density-Age Relationship in Keratoconus After Mechanical Stripping of the Epithelium.Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical results of standard corneal cross-linking (SCXL) with transepithelial corneal cross-linking (TECXL) in progressive keratoconus using a meta-analysis.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2020 to identify relevant studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Primary outcomes were change in uncorrected distance visual acuity and maximum keratometry (
resultsSixteen studies with a total of 690 eyes (SCXL: 332 eyes; TECXL: 358 eyes) were included. At the last follow-up, SCXL provided a greater decrease in maximum keratometry (
conclusionsExcept for a greater decrease in Kmax with SCXL group, both groups have a comparable effect on visual, pachymetric, and endothelial parameters at 24 months after surgery. Larger studies with a longer follow-up time are necessary to determine whether these techniques are comparable in the long term.
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.