Observational studyEye (London, England)2024
Comparison of standard versus accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: 5-year outcomes from the Save Sight Keratoconus Registry.
Observational study in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association Between Keratoconus and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cornea · 2026Pooled it
- Pulsed corneal crosslinking in the treatment of Keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Pooled it
- Epithelium-on versus epithelium-off corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Pooled it
- Regional Biomechanical and Topographic Changes after Transepithelial vs. Epithelium-off Continuous Accelerated Corneal Cross-linking in Keratoconus: Updated Stress-Strain Index as a Superior Biomarker.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- One-Year Comparative Outcomes of Conventional Versus Accelerated Corneal Cross-Linking in Progressive Keratoconus.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Trends in the Management of Keratoconus in Australia.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Review
- Safety and efficacy of contact lens-assisted accelerated corneal cross-linking using Nelfilcon A in thin corneas.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of corneal stromal demarcation line depth after corneal collagen cross-linking with two different UV energy levels in keratoconus: a comparative study using AS-OCT andInternational journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Article
- Refractive lenticule-assisted accelerated corneal cross-linking: a three-year clinical observation in patients with thin keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Corneal Densitometry Changes Following Standard Versus Accelerated Corneal Cross-Linking Protocol.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- International corneal and ocular surface disease dataset for electronic health records.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Two-year outcomes of accelerated contact lens-assisted corneal crosslinking versus accelerated corneal crosslinking: a comparative study.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Assessing UVA and Laser-Induced Crosslinking via Brillouin Microscopy.Journal of biophotonics · 2025Article
- Digital transformation of care for keratoconus patients: ML modeling structural outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Impacts of keratoconus on quality of life: a qualitative study.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Review
- Standard and accelerated crosslinking protocols in keratoconus - differences and evolution at one year.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare long-term effectiveness of Standard (UV intensity: 3 mW/cm
methodsData for this observational study were captured through a web-based registry system from the routine clinical practice (15 sites across Australia, New Zealand and Italy). The outcomes were compared using mixed-effects regression models. A total of 100 eyes (75 patients) who had standard CXL and 76 eyes (66 patients) who had accelerated CXL, with a follow-up visit at five-year post-CXL were included.
resultsBoth CXL protocols were effective and safe in stabilising keratoconus and improving outcomes. The adjusted mean changes (95% CI) in outcomes were better in standard CXL than in accelerated CXL [visual acuity gain, 10.2 (7.9-12.5) vs 4.9 (1.6-8.2) logMAR letters; pinhole visual acuity 5.7 (3.5-7.8) vs 0.2 (-2.2 to 2.5) logMAR letters; Kmax -1.8 (-4.3 to 0.6) vs 1.2 (-1.5 to 3.9)D; K2 -0.9 (-2.2 to 0.3) vs 0.1 (-1.3 to 1.6)D; MCT -3.0 (-13.7 to 7.7) vs -11.8 (-23.9 to 0.4) µm (p values for visual acuity, pinhole visual acuity, Kmax: <0.05; for K2 and MCT: >0.05)]. The frequency of adverse events at the 5-year follow-up visit was low in both groups [standard, 5 (5%; haze 3; scarring 1, epithelial defect 1) and accelerated 3 (3.9%; haze 2, scarring 1)].
conclusionsBoth standard and accelerated CXL were safe and effective procedures for stabilising keratoconus in the long term. The standard CXL resulted in greater improvements in visual acuity and keratometry.
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.