Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38884654›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024

Biomechanical changes following corneal crosslinking in keratoconus patients.

Emilia Felter, Ramin Khoramnia, Maximilian Friedrich, Hyeck-Soo Son, Gerd U Auffarth, Victor A Augustin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. CorvisThe British journal of ophthalmology · 2026
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Emilia Felter *David J. Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology and International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, INF 400, 69120, Germany.
Ramin Khoramnia *David J. Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology and International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, INF 400, 69120, Germany.
Maximilian FriedrichDavid J. Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology and International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, INF 400, 69120, Germany.
Hyeck-Soo SonDavid J. Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology and International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, INF 400, 69120, Germany.
Gerd U AuffarthDavid J. Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology and International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, INF 400, 69120, Germany.
Victor A AugustinDavid J. Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology and International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, INF 400, 69120, Germany. victor.augustin@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6315-8484

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the biomechanical and tomographic outcomes of keratoconus patients up to four years after corneal crosslinking (CXL).

methodsIn this longitudinal retrospective-prospective single-center case series, the preoperative tomographic and biomechanical results from 200 keratoconus eyes of 161 patients undergoing CXL were compared to follow-up examinations at three-months, six-months, one-year, two-years, three-years, and four-years after CXL. Primary outcomes included the Corvis Biomechanical Factor (CBiF) and five biomechanical response parameters obtained from the Corvis ST. Tomographically, the Belin-Ambrósio deviation index (BAD-D) and the maximal keratometry (K

resultsThe CBiF decreased significantly at the six-month (p < 0.001) and one-year (p < 0.001) follow-ups when compared to preoperative values. E-staging behaved accordingly to the CBiF. Within the two- to four-year follow-ups, the biomechanical outcomes showed no significant differences when compared to preoperative. Tomographically, the BAD-D increased significantly during the first year after CXL with a maximum at six-months (p < 0.001), while K

conclusionIn the first year after CXL, there was a temporary progression in both the biomechanical CBiF and E-staging, as well as in the tomographic analysis. CXL contributes to the stabilization of both the tomographic and biomechanical properties of the cornea up to four years postoperatively.

Indexed as

CollagenCorneaCorneal TopographyCross-Linking ReagentsKeratoconusPhotochemotherapyPhotosensitizing AgentsRiboflavinVisual AcuityAdolescentAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaCorneal StromaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansCollagenCross-Linking ReagentsPhotosensitizing AgentsRiboflavinBiomechanical analysisCorneaCorvis STCrosslinkingKeratoconus

Identifiers

PMID38884654
PMCPMC11584418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.