ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Comparison Between Pulsed and Continuous Accelerated Corneal Cross-Linking Protocols.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Critical Role of Oxygen Supplementation in Epithelium-On Corneal Cross-Linking: A Narrative Review.Advances in therapy · 2026Review
- Review
- Advancements and Innovations in Keratoconus Management: A Review of Current Practices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Long-term outcomes after high-energy accelerated pulsed corneal cross-linking (15 mW/cmInternational ophthalmology · 2025Article
- A Review of Keratoconus Cross-Linking Treatment Methods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Corneal collagen cross-linking in patients with keratoconus from the Dresden protocol to customized solutions: theoretical basis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare between two accelerated corneal cross-linking (A-CXL) protocols in the management of keratoconus (KC) as regard to the extent of corneal treatment. Methods: This retrospective, comparative study included patients having mild to moderate, progressive KC. The study population was divided into two groups; group 1 enrolled 103 eyes of 62 patients who received pulsed light A-CXL (pl-CXL) at a power of 30 mW/cm Results: The differences between the preoperative corneal thickness (minimum and central) and the epithelial thickness measurements between both groups were not statistically significant. Although group 1 had slightly larger central DD (223.4 ± 62.3 um), DDmax (240.4 ± 61.8 um), and DDmin (201 ± 54 um) than those of group 2 (221.8 ± 37 um, 229.1 ± 38.4 um, and 212 ± 37.2 um, respectively), the differences between both groups' measurements were not statistically significant. Also, the two groups showed statistically insignificant differences regarding the subjective refraction and the average and maximum keratometry pre and postoperatively, denoting visual, refractive, and keratometric stability in both groups. Conclusion: Longer duration cl-CXL seems to be as effective as pl-CXL regarding both postoperative stability and the extent of corneal tissue penetration by the ultraviolet treatment.
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.