ArticleCureus2021
Corneal Cross-Linking for Keratoconus and Post-LASIK Ectasia and Failure Rate: A 3 Years Follow-Up Study.
Article in Cureus, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potential applications of artificial intelligence in image analysis in cornea diseases: a review.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2024Review
- Corneal Collagen Crosslinking for Ectasia After Refractive Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Identification of Treatment Protocols for Effective Cross-Linking of the Peripheral Cornea: An Experimental Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To report the response of keratoconus (KC) and post-LASIK ectasia (referred to as "ectasia") to the corneal crosslinking (CXL) and to compare the rate of progression between KC and ectasia at three years. Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing CXL for either KC or ectasia. Fifty-four eyes (31 patients) with ectasia and 111 eyes (67 patients) with KC were included in the study. Corrected distance visual acuities (CDVA), refraction, keratometry (K), and pachymetry were followed up for three years. Simultaneous photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and CXL were performed on 20 KC and 20 ectasia eyes. Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments (ICRS) were performed on 51 KC and six ectasia eyes. Results In KC, CDVA, spherical equivalence, sphere, cylinder, and mean K improved at three years post-CXL (p-value<0.05), but these values improved without reaching a statistical significance in ectasia(p-values <0.05). 12 of 54 eyes with ectasia (22.2%) and 4 of 111 eyes (3.6%) with KC had progression post CXL(p-value:0.0001). Ectasia patients diagnosed with progression were older at presentation (36.1 years) than non-progressive ectasia patients (31 years) (p-value 0.02) and also older than KC patients. Sub-analysis excluding PRK and ICRS cases showed that there was an improvement in mean sphere (from -5.23±4.2D to-4.46±3.89D) (p-value 0.03) cylinder (from 2.54 ± 1.68D to 1.97 ± 1.51D) (p-value 0.03) mean keratometry (from 46.81 ± 3.78D to 46.01 ± 3.25D) (p-value 0.006) in KC patients 3 years post CXL (40 patients). Compared to baseline, all the mean refractive and topographic variables deteriorated at three years post CXL in ectasia (28 patients) (p-value>0.05). Also, 2 of 40 patients with KC (5%) vs. 7 of 28 patients with ectasia (25%) had progression three years post-CXL, and the difference between both groups remained statistically significant(p-value 0.027). Conclusion Eyes with post-LASIK ectasia seem to be less responsive to CXL than KC.
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.