Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36944752›Full record

ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2023

Network meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety of different protocols of corneal cross-linking for the treatment of progressive keratoconus.

Lan Ding, Ling Sun, Xingtao Zhou

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lan DingDepartment of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ling SunDepartment of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xingtao ZhouDepartment of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. doctzhouxingtao@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3465-1579
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

Project of Shanghai Science and Technology 17411950200the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81770955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to determine the preferred protocol of corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) in the treatment of progressive keratoconus.

methodsRelevant studies were retrieved in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Maximum keratometry value (K

resultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Low-level evidence suggested that aCXL with 30mW/cm

conclusionOverall, three protocols of aCXL are comparable in therapeutic efficacy and safety for treating progressive keratoconus. Despite no direct data comparing the efficacy of each technique according to different patients' profiles, it is reasonable to state that aCXL-5 may be the best for patients at early-stage to reduce K

Indexed as

Corneal Cross-LinkingKeratoconusClinical ProtocolsHumansPhotosensitizing AgentsPhotosensitizing AgentsAccelerated cross-linkingCorneal collagen cross-linkingNetwork meta-analysisProgressive keratoconusStandard cross-linking

Identifiers

PMID36944752
OpenAlexW4353015952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.