SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
Efficacy of single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism-a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amniotic Membrane in Excimer Laser Surface Ablation (ELSA): Mechanisms for Haze Prevention and Broader Ocular Surface Optimisation.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes and safety of preservative-free diclofenac sodium eye drops in SPT-assisted transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
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
backgroundThis systematic review assesses the efficacy of single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) in terms of postoperative pain, epithelial healing, postoperative haze and visual acuity. It also compares single tPRK to two-step tPRK where data is available.
methodsThis systematic review adhered to the PRISMA reporting guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses). An electronic literature search was conducted on PUBMED, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The quality of the studies included in this systematic review was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). The protocol of this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO with ID CRD42024494717.
resultsA total of 11 studies published between 2013 and 2023 were included in this systematic review. Studies revealed a significant improvement in visual acuity with both single-step tPRK and two-step tPRK. Two studies showed that single-step tPRK not only offers a better UDVA but also a significant improvement in the manifest sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent at various follow-up periods compared to two-step tPRK. One study demonstrated the broad effectiveness of single-step tPRK for myopia correction across low-, moderate-, and high-severity groups. Rapid epithelial healing was a consistent finding. Complete epithelial healing within 72 h was noted in 100% of eyes treated with single-step tPRK in one of the studies. The incidence of corneal haze following tPRK was generally low across the studies. Post-tPRK pain scores were initially lower in the single-step tPRK group. One study reported that the maximum pain level within the first four days after surgery was significantly lower in the single-step tPRK group than in the two-step tPRK group.
conclusionBoth two-step and single-step tPRK are safe refractive procedures. Single-step tPRK, because of less haze formation, lower pain scores, faster healing, and greater effectiveness in improving visual acuity, is superior to the two-step technique.
trial registrationThe protocol of this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO with ID CRD42024494717.
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.