SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
Corneal cross-linking for infectious keratitis of various causes: an umbrella 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 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.
- The Science and Clinical Evolution of Corneal Cross-Linking: Mechanism of Action, Ultra-Structural Changes, Clinical Indications, and Emerging Treatment Strategies.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Anterior Segment OCT in FulminantDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Emerging treatments in fungal keratitis.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
- Anti-inflammatory treatments in microbial keratitis.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the therapeutic role of corneal cross-linking (CXL) for infectious keratitis.
methodsThis is an umbrella review of the systematic reviews and meta-analysis concerning the role of corneal CXL in treating infectious keratitis. Appropriate keywords were carefully selected following the identification of PICO (Population: People who have corneal cross-linking for infectious keratitis; Intervention: corneal cross-linking; Comparison: other treatments such as antibiotic therapy; Outcome: Primary outcome was considered as the efficacy of treatment using re-epithelization and heal rate, and secondary outcome was considered need to penetrating keratoplasty (PK)). The electronic search across various databases, including Cochrane, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Psychoinfo, and ProQuest, was performed until August 2024.
resultsFive systematic reviews out of 53 identified records are included in the umbrella review. Due to the structure of the included studies, statistical analysis was not possible to be conducted. Four studies were included that mainly evaluated the role of adjuvant corneal CXL in bacterial keratitis, and the other study focused mainly on fungal keratitis. The studies reported heterogeneous results. Two systematic reviews reported a shorter period for corneal epithelium healing in the adjuvant CXL group compared to the standard antibiotic therapy (SAT), especially in fungal keratitis. However, two studies showed no significant change in re-epithelization duration. One meta-analysis reported a reduction in corneal infiltrate size 7 days after adjuvant corneal CXL compared to the SAT. None of the included studies reported a difference in corneal complications, such as perforation and the need for PK in the CXL group compared to SAT.
conclusionThe corneal CXL in infectious keratitis has no uniform protocol, especially regarding the de-epithelization procedure before CXL, leading to heterogeneity in the trial results. However, it seems the adjuvant corneal CXL next to SAT is not inferior to the unaccompanied SAT and may be superior in some cases, including fungal etiologies, regarding faster corneal healing.
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.