Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39781287›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Long-Term Effectiveness of Scleral Lens Treatment in the Management of Keratoconus: A Systematic Review.

Adeel Mushtaq, Isaamuddin Alvi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Adeel MushtaqRadiology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, GBR.
Isaamuddin AlviTrauma and Orthopaedics, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review evaluates the long-term effectiveness of scleral lenses in improving visual outcomes, patient satisfaction, and safety in patients with keratoconus. A systematic search of six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE) was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The inclusion criteria included studies with more than or equal to three months of follow-up, included a minimum of 20 keratoconus patients, published after year 2020 and outcomes reporting visual acuity, comfort or quality of life. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Murad et al. case series tool. Five studies (463 eyes) met the inclusion criteria. Scleral lenses consistently improved best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) across studies, with visual gains from baseline logMAR 0.50-0.53 to post-treatment logMAR 0.08-0.09. Significant improvements in vision-related quality of life (National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) scores) were observed in validated assessments. Complications were infrequently reported but included lens handling issues (10.4%-63%), fogging (58%), and physiological events (e.g., corneal epitheliopathy). Long-term follow-up indicated that 14.6% of the patients experienced worsening visual acuity due to keratoconus progression. Methodological quality was variable, with limitations including variable outcome reporting and limited follow-up duration.  Scleral lenses provide substantial and sustained improvements in visual acuity and quality of life for keratoconus patients, particularly those with advanced disease. However, the evidence is limited by methodological shortcomings and a lack of long-term controlled studies. Future research should prioritise randomised trials with standardised reporting and longer follow-up to better assess complications and durability of outcomes.

Indexed as

corneal ectasiakeratoconus (kc)long-term outcomescleral contact lenssystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID39781287
PMCPMC11707714

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.