Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40445504›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025

Transepithelial Versus Conventional PRK: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Robert Edward T Ang

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04698174 (Prospective Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a New Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT04698174 nacompletednot on this map

Prospective Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a New Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy Treatment

TypeinterventionalSponsorBausch & Lomb IncorporatedRan2021 to 2022Enrolled39ConditionsAmetropiaArmsTransepithelial Photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) without laser polishing, Transepithelial Photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) with laser polishing, Standard Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

1 author.

Robert Edward T AngAsian Eye Institute, 8th Floor PHINMA Plaza Bldg., Hidalgo Drive, Rockwell Center, 1200, Makati City, Philippines. rtang@asianeyeinstitute.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTransepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (t-PRK) is an updated maneuver based on the proven surgical procedure of conventional photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the correction of ametropia. Unlike conventional PRK, which is a two-step process involving the physical removal of the corneal epithelium prior to excimer laser treatment of the stroma, t-PRK uses the excimer laser to complete both activities in a single-step procedure.

methodsThis was a prospective, randomized, controlled, contralateral, masked, single-surgeon study of adult subjects with myopia with a manifest residual spherical equivalent (MRSE) of ≤ 1.5 D or hyperopia with an MRSE of ≥  + 1.5 D, conducted at a single center in the Philippines. Eligible subjects were randomized to undergo conventional PRK in one eye and t-PRK in the other. The follow-up was for 6 months. The primary endpoint evaluated the absolute refractive predictability at 3 months. Secondary endpoints during the 6-month follow-up included safety, manifest refraction, visual acuity, halos and glare, slit-lamp examinations, and patient-reported outcomes.

resultsA total of 35 subjects (70 eyes) were enrolled (63% female, 94% Asian, mean age 30 years). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) absolute prediction error was 0.26 D (0.23) for conventional PRK and 0.34 D (0.32) for t-PRK, meeting the threshold for demonstration of noninferiority (p = 0.2253). There were no statistically significant differences between conventional PRK and t-PRK for manifest sphere, manifest cylinder, MRSE, or uncorrected or corrected visual acuity at 6 months. All subjects were satisfied with both procedures and there was no preference for one treatment over the other.

conclusionsBoth conventional and t-PRK are equally safe and effective, and result in favorable outcomes for subjects with ametropia. The efficiency of the t-PRK procedure versus conventional PRK should be considered when PRK is indicated.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04698174.

Indexed as

Alcohol-assisted photorefractive keratectomyAmetropiaHyperopiaMyopiaRefractive surgeryTransepithelial photorefractive keratectomy

Identifiers

PMID40445504
PMCPMC12167193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.