Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2024
A comparison of conventional and accelerated corneal crosslinking: corneal epithelial remodeling and in vivo confocal microscopy analysis.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effect of conventional and accelerated corneal crosslinking (CXL) on visual acuity, corneal topography, corneal epithelial thickness, and subbasal nerve morphology in progressive keratoconus patients.
methodsIn this prospective and randomized study, twenty eyes of 20 patients were treated with conventional CXL (3 mW/cm
resultsAt postoperative 6 months, a significant improvement was observed in all keratometric values in both treatment groups (p < 0.05). All epithelial thickness indices, except central, temporal, and inferotemporal thickness, were reduced at 1 month postoperatively in both treatment groups. The epithelial map uniformity indices (standard deviation and difference between min-max thickness) were significantly lower than the baseline values at all time points after CXL in both treatment groups (p < 0.001). Compared with the preoperative values, there was a significant decrease in all IVCCM parameters at 1 month postoperatively (p < 0.05). At 6 months postoperatively, corneal nerve fiber density and corneal nerve branch density recovered to preoperative values in the A-CXL group, whereas corneal nerve regeneration was not complete in the C-CXL group.
conclusionBoth conventional and accelerated CXL treatments appear to be effective in halting the progression of KC. Corneal epithelial irregularity slightly improves after CXL. The regeneration of subbasal nerves is faster after A-CXL treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38363414What 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.