ReviewCureus2022
A Comparison Between Cross-Linking Protocols in Patients With Progressive Keratoconus: A Review.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Proportion and clinical characteristics of keratoconus among patients attending refraction units: a retrospective facility-based study in Malawi.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Keratoconus (KC) is a noninflammatory cornea disease leading to progressive thinning, causing it to change from its normal dome shape to a cone shape. One of the novel treatments of KC is corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL). Due to its importance, many studies have been conducted to compare corneal cross-linking protocols; this review article aims to discuss corneal cross-linking and compare its different treatment options, including Dresden, accelerated, and customized protocols in patients with progressive KC and their respective long-term outcomes. A search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar with no language, dates, or study type restriction. Most of the results showed almost no difference between protocols over traditional cross-linking. However, published data are limited, long-term outcomes of novel age groups remain unclear, and further studies are needed.
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.