SynthesisGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025
Pulsed corneal crosslinking in the treatment of Keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. 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.
- Nanomaterial-Enhanced Corneal Cross-Linking: Engineering Strategies for Transforming Keratoconus Management.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- The Critical Role of Oxygen Supplementation in Epithelium-On Corneal Cross-Linking: A Narrative Review.Advances in therapy · 2026Review
- Advancements and Innovations in Keratoconus Management: A Review of Current Practices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Impact of Corneal Crosslinking on Endothelial and Biomechanical Parameters in Keratoconus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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
purposeCorneal crosslinking (CXL) procedures are the treatment of choice in halting progressive corneal ectasia and preserving visual acuity due to keratoconus. Pulsed crosslinking (P-CXL) was developed using intermittent pulsing ultraviolet (UV) light to mitigate the depletion of oxygen levels that occurs with continuous UV exposure in standard crosslinking protocols (C-CXL). This study aimed to explore the use of P-CXL in the treatment of keratoconus and determine whether the availability of oxygen in P-CXL carries superior efficacy outcomes as an alternative to C-CXL modalities.
methodsThis review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A search of several databases conducted with two separate reviewers resulted in 29 papers meeting inclusion criteria for the review, 14 selected for meta-analysis. Primary outcomes assessed by the included papers included maximum keratometry (Kmax), corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity (CDVA, UDVA), and secondary outcomes included central corneal thickness (CCT), endothelial cell count and demarcation line. Statistical analyses were carried out on Review Manager 5.4 and the meta-analysis employed a random-effects model, which estimated the weighted effect size of raw means using inverse variance weights.
resultsAt 12 months P-CXL showed statistically significant reductions in Kmax (-0.75 D; p < 0.001) and improvement in CDVA (-0.10 logMAR; p < 0.001) compared to baseline. The meta-analysis of comparative studies determined that mean differences in Kmax, CDVA, UDVA, Kmean and CCT after 12 months were not statistically significant between pulsed and continuous crosslinking groups.
conclusionsOverall, P-CXL is effective in improving visual acuity and keratometry outcomes in keratoconus. The meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in Kmax and CDVA between P-CXL and C-CXL, indicating a non-inferiority of P-CXL. However, findings of the meta-analysis are limited by the fact that different energy levels and exposure times were used for P-CXL in comparison to C-CXL in some studies, making it unsuitable to determine whether the efficacy of CXL is improved by the use of pulsed light. KEY MESSAGES: What is Known • Pulsed crosslinking (P-CXL) uses intermittent UV light to prevent oxygen depletion when using higher energy protocols, unlike continuous UV exposure in standard continuous crosslinking (C-CXL). • This should theoretically enhance the efficacy of the treatment by maintaining higher oxygen levels that are crucial to the cross-linking process. • There are no systematic reviews or meta-analyses directly comparing the efficacy or safety of P-CXL to C-CXL. What is New • Meta-analysis revealed differences in keratometry between P-CXL and C-CXL groups with equivalent fluence (7.2 J/cm
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.