ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2022
Pediatric Crosslinking: Current Protocols and Approach.
Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical and Tomographic Outcomes in Pediatric Keratoconus Treated with Conventional Epithelium-Off Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Corneal Cross-Linking in Keratoconus: Comparative Analysis of Standard, Accelerated and Transepithelial Protocols.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Long-term outcomes after high-energy accelerated pulsed corneal cross-linking (15 mW/cmInternational ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Keratoconus in children in Tunisia: Epidemiological, clinical and therapeutic features.La Tunisie medicale · 2025Article
- Corneal Cross-Linking for Pediatric Keratoconus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Temporal keratoconus in a pediatric patient.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Keratoconus (KC) is likely to be more aggressive in the pediatric population, with a higher risk of progression and visual loss. Several techniques have been proposed for corneal crosslinking (CXL) so far. The standard CXL (SCXL) technique, or the Dresden Protocol, originally developed by Wollensak et al., has been shown to be safe and effective in the pediatric KC group. With similar efficacy to the conventional method, the accelerated CXL (ACXL) protocols proposed a reduced UVA exposure time by increasing the intensity of UVA irradiation. Transepithelial CXL (TCXL), considered an "epithelium-on" method, emerged as a strategy to improve safety and reduce postoperative complications and discomfort. For thinner corneas, we can highlight the use of hypoosmolar riboflavin and new studies, such as contact lens-assisted CXL (CACXL), the epithelial-island CXL (EI-CXL), and the Sub400 protocol. In addition to the different protocols used, another factor that changes CXL results is the type of carrier used: dextran-based or hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-based (HPMC) riboflavin solutions. There are several ways to perform a CXL surgery, and it is still unclear which method is the safest and most effective in the pediatric group. This review of the literature in English, available in PubMed, provides an update on corneal CXL in the pediatric KC group, exploring the data on the techniques currently used and under investigation, including their advantages, efficacy, safety profiles, risks, and cost analyses.
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.