ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2022
Topography versus non-topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy with corneal cross-linking variations in keratoconus.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corneal Cross-Linking in Keratoconus: Comparative Analysis of Standard, Accelerated and Transepithelial Protocols.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The microenvironment of ocular surface in keratoconus: a systematic review.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Review
- Digital transformation of care for keratoconus patients: ML modeling structural outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Application of Surgical Protocols for the Treatment of Highly Irregular Astigmatism with Topographic Guided Ablation in a Case of Post-LASIK Ectasia.International medical case reports journal · 2025Article
- Keratoconus: exploring fundamentals and future perspectives - a comprehensive systematic review.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the visual results of non-topography-guided and topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) applying sequential and simultaneous corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment for keratoconus.
methodsInterventional and comparative prospective study. Sixty-nine eyes (36 patients) suffering from keratoconus (stages 1 Amsler-Krumeich classification) were divided into four groups: sequential topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy with CXL, simultaneous topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy with CXL, simultaneous non-topography guided photorefractive keratectomy with CXL, and sequential non-topography guided photorefractive keratectomy with CXL. The main outcome measures were pre- and postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), best corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, contrast sensitivity, and keratometry.
resultsAll analyzed visual, contrast sensitivity, and refractive parameters showed a significant improvement in the four groups (all
conclusionThe treatment priorities in all four groups are safety, efficacy, and predictability in the correction of the sphero-cylindrical errors in mild and moderate keratoconus. No significant differences among groups in the recorded objective outcomes were found.
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.