ReviewCureus2025
Long-Term Effectiveness of Scleral Lens Treatment in the Management of Keratoconus: A Systematic Review.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in Visual Acuity and Dry Eye Parameters Following One Month of Scleral Lens Wear in Patients with Keratoconus: A Prospective Observational Study from Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Visual Rehabilitation of Bilateral Keratoconus With Customized Scleral Lenses: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Complications After INTACS Implantation in Keratoconus: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- One-Year Impact of Scleral Lens Wear on Corneal Morphology in Keratoconus with and Without Intracorneal Ring Segment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Management of astigmatism in keratoconus with therapeutic refractive surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Contact Lenses and Vision-Related Quality of Life: Evidence and Clinical Insights.Clinical optometry · 2026Review
- Avoiding Surgery: Successful Management of a Patient With Severe Keratoconus Using Scleral Contact Lenses.Cureus · 2025Article
- Corneal Tomographic Changes in Keratoconus Associated with Scleral Lens Wear: A Case-Control Analysis for 12-Month Follow-Up.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.