ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023
Determination of efficacy of repeated CXL and probable risk factors in patients with progressive keratoconus.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes of Repeated Corneal Crosslinking for Progressive Keratoconus After Failure of Primary Procedure; Safety and Efficacy at 12-Month Follow-Up.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Quality of Life Enhancement After Penetrating Keratoplasty in Keratoconus: A Vision-Related Functional Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Individual Risk Assessment and Prognostication of Outcomes After Corneal Cross-Linking.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Repeated corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus: efficiency and safety.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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of Repeated CXL (Re-CXL) and determine probable risk factors that lead to Re-CXL in patients with progressive keratoconus.
methodIn this retrospective study, the medical records of patients who had been re-operated in our center between 2014 to 2020 due to progressive keratoconus were evaluated; seven eyes of seven patients had undergone Re-CXL procedure. Pre- and post-treatment variables were recorded and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software.
resultsThe mean interval between the 1st and 2nd CXL was 49.71 months (range 12-72 months). Out of 7 patients for whom Re-CXL was considered necessary, eye rubbing was detected in 6 patients. Six patients were very young with a mean age of 13 years at primary CXL and 16.83 years at Re-CXL. Visual acuity and astigmatism did not change significantly after the Re-CXL procedure (p-values = 0.18, 0.91, respectively). When measurements of these indices prior to Re-CXL and post Re-CXL were compared, K1 (p-value = 0.01), K2 (p-value = 0.01), Kmean (p-value = 0.01), and Kmax (p-value = 0.008) changed significantly. As to pachymetry (p-value = 0.46), it did not change significantly. Kmax value regressed in all eyes after Re-CXL.
conclusionRe-CXL procedure was effective in halting the progression of disease. As to the risk factors, eye rubbed-related mechanism like eye rubbing and VKC, lower age, and pre-operative Kmax value > 58 D are the risk factors of Re-CXL procedure.
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.