ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2021
Corneal Cross-Linking as Treatment in Pediatric Keratoconus: Comparison of Two Protocols.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paediatric Keratoconus: An ERN-EYE Clinical Consensus Statement on Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up Care.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Long-term results of accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking in paediatric patients with progressive keratoconus: 10-year follow-up.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Outcomes of the Q value-based nomogram in managing pediatric versus adult keratoconus: a prospective interventional study.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionKeratoconus is a progressive corneal disease commonly treated by collagen cross-linking (CXL). Accelerated protocols have recently become common. This study sought to compare the outcomes of accelerated and standard CXL in terms of visual acuity, keratometry, and tomographic parameters in pediatric population.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the files of pediatric patients who underwent standard and accelerated CXL for keratoconus in our hospital, between October 2014 and March 2018. Changes in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), tomographic keratometry parameters (
resultsThis study included 53 eyes (44 patients). Fourteen eyes were treated with standard CXL (S-CXL, 3 mW/cm
conclusionA-CXL is as safe and effective as S-CXL for stabilizing progressive keratoconus in pediatric population. Larger-sample-size studies with a longer follow-up time are required. Considering the long-term results of 9 mW A-CXL and its safety and efficacy profile, it should be preferred to S-CXL for reducing treatment time and improving patients' comfort.
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.