ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2022
[Treatment indications for corneal crosslinking and clinical results of new corneal crosslinking techniques].
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term outcomes of lamellar crescentic wedge resection on corneal astigmatism and optical aberrations in patients with advanced pellucid marginal degeneration.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Simultaneous versus sequential corneal cross-linking and intracorneal ring segments implantation for keratoconus: two-year study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCorneal crosslinking (CXL) is used in keratoconus to strengthen and stabilize the cornea and to prevent further progression with subsequent visual loss and the possible need for keratoplasty. Correct treatment indications is crucial in this context. Since the introduction of the initial Dresden protocol, other modified CXL protocols have been proposed to optimize treatment success.
objectiveThe relevant parameters for treatment indications are explained and the clinical results of new CXL protocols are presented.
methodsThe currently valid criteria with respect to the indications for CXL in keratoconus, PubMed search for relevant publications and own experiences with different CXL protocols are presented.
resultsThe reproducibility of topographic parameters depends on the stage of the keratoconus. Accelerated CXL as well as transepithelial CXL with a hyperoxic environment show comparable efficiency with shorter surgery time and possibly lower complication rates. Customized CXL with an individualized UV irradiation profile provides improved results with faster epithelial healing. Lower UV energy doses enable CXL to be conducted in eyes with minimal stromal pachymetry of less than 400 µm before irradiation. The combination of CXL with photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) provides visual acuity improvements but also increases the risk of visual loss.
conclusionCurrent indication rules for CXL neglect the reduced reproducability of topographic and tomographic measurements in keratoconus. The latest CXL protocols presented here provide a safe alternative with similar and/or better efficacy compared to standard CXL. The combination of CXL with PRK offers an option for visual rehabilitation in patients with contact lens intolerance.
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.