ArticlePloS one2022
Predicting factors for the efficacy of cross-linking for keratoconus.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refractive lenticule-assisted accelerated corneal cross-linking: a three-year clinical observation in patients with thin keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Long-term Effects and Prognostic Factors of Accelerated Cross-Linking with Retention Ring-assisted Riboflavin Application on Keratoconus Progression.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2025Article
- A Review of Keratoconus Cross-Linking Treatment Methods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Digital transformation of care for keratoconus patients: ML modeling structural outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Keratoconus: A Probe Into the Refractive Symmetry.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Distribution and associated factors of keratometry and corneal astigmatism in an elderly population.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ultra-High Resolution Optical Aberrometry in Patients with Keratoconus: A Cross-Sectional Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Unravelling the Impact of Cyclic Mechanical Stretch in Keratoconus-A Transcriptomic Profiling Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Outcome indicators for cross linking in pediatric keratoconus.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Standard and accelerated crosslinking protocols in keratoconus - differences and evolution at one year.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate predictors for success in corneal crosslinking (CXL) for keratoconus in a large cohort and extended follow-up.
designA retrospective study based on a prospectively built database.
methodsParticipants underwent CXL for keratoconus from 2007 to 2018. Statistical analysis was performed for patients with at least 1-year follow-up. We analyzed effects of CXL type (Epithelium-on or Epithelium-off and Accelerated (9mW/cm2@10min) or Standard (3mW/cm2@30min)) and pre-operative factors including age, gender, baseline LogMAR visual acuity (LogMARpre), maximal corneal power (Kmaxpre), pachymetry, refractive and topographic cylinders, spherical equivalent (SEpre), mean corneal power (MeanK) and follow-up time on outcome measures. The outcome measures were the final change of Kmax (Delta Kmax) and the final change in LogMAR visual acuity (Delta LogMAR). A more negative Delta Kmax or Delta LogMAR represents a favorable effect of crosslinking.
results517 eyes had Kmax results, and 385 eyes had LogMAR results with more than one year follow-up. These eyes were included in the study. The mean follow-up time was 2.29 years. Mean Kmax decreased from 54.07±5.99 diopters to 52.84±5.66 diopters (p<0.001), and Mean LogMAR decreased from 0.28±0.20 to 0.25±0.21 (p<0.001). Non-accelerated epithelium-off CXL resulted in greater flattening of Kmax when compared with other protocols. Visual acuity improvement was similar when comparing different CXL protocols. Multivariate analysis showed four factors associated with negative Delta Kmax: high Kmaxpre, high SEpre, high MeanKpre, and non-accelerated procedure. Multivariate analysis showed three factors associated with negative Delta LogMAR: high LogMARpre, high SEpre, and Low MeanKpre. After excluding corneas with Kmaxpre >65 D or Pachymetry<400 microns, multivariate analysis showed that high Kmaxpre, high SEpre, and non-accelerated CXL were associated with negative Delta Kmax while high LogMARpre and high SEpre were associated with negative Delta LogMAR.
conclusionCXL for keratoconus is a highly effective treatment, as evident by its effects on the outcome measures: Delta Kmax and Delta LogMAR. CXL was more successful in eyes with high Kmaxpre, high SEpre, and high LogMARpre, which express disease severity. The non-accelerated epithelium-off protocol was associated with greater flattening of corneal curvature but did not show a better effect on visual acuity as compared to the other CXL protocols.
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.