ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2022
Outcomes of different lines of keratoconus management in a tertiary eye center in north China.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individual Risk Assessment and Prognostication of Outcomes After Corneal Cross-Linking.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Late corneal ectasia after penetrating and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for keratoconus.International 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the treatment selections and outcomes of keratoconus and discuss the grading treatment of keratoconus.
methodsMedical records of 1162 patients (1863 eyes) with keratoconus treated with rigid gas permeable (RGP), corneal collagen crosslinking, and keratoplasty were reviewed. The patients were grouped according to the CLEK Study. The advanced group was further divided into a <60 D group and >60 D group. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and topographic data before and after treatment were recorded.
resultsIn the 761 eyes with steep K<52 D, nonsurgical management accounted for 83.4%, while in the 735 eyes with steep K>60 D, surgical management accounted for 90.6%. A total of 618 eyes had improved BCVA at the final follow-up point (>18mo,
conclusionSteep K is an important grading treatment indicator. When steep K is <52 D, RGP lenses should be recommended. It is the best time for LKP when the steep K ranges from 52 to 60 D.
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.