ArticleRomanian journal of ophthalmology
Standard and accelerated crosslinking protocols in keratoconus - differences and evolution at one year.
Article in Romanian journal of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
Objectives: Keratoconus (KC) is a bilateral, progressive corneal ectasia that involves corneal thinning and a decrease in visual acuity. Stopping the progression of keratoconus can be achieved through various photooxidative crosslinking (CXL) methods. The objective of this study was to compare two protocols of epi-off corneal crosslinking-the standard and the accelerated protocol-in terms of efficacy after a one-year follow-up. Methods: 41 eyes with progressive keratoconus were treated with corneal crosslinking, either using the accelerated (Acc-CXL) or standard protocol (Std-CXL). The following parameters were monitored: refraction, corneal diopter power on topographic maps (Kmax and Kmin), corneal thickness (CCT), resistance factor (CRF), hysteresis, and the depth of the demarcation line. All measurements were repeated 12 months after the intervention. Results: The progression of keratoconus was halted in 20 eyes using the accelerated method and in 21 eyes using the standard procedure. Both methods resulted in a statistically significant regression of the spherical equivalent, Kmax, and an increase in CCT and CRF, without substantial differences in efficacy. The demarcation line was highlighted on average at a depth of 278.9 ± 31.71 micrometres for the Acc-CXL group and 280.42 ± 47.85 micrometres for the Std-CXL group. It was correlated with the initial topographical values. Discussion: The evaluation of patients revealed no progression of keratoconus following the procedure. Approximately 40% of the cases in the accelerated protocol group and 38.09% of the cases in the standard protocol group have maintained the parameters at a constant level. In comparison, approximately 60% of the cases have shown improvements. An Australian registry revealed that both CXL protocols are safe and effective; however, the standard procedure leads to improved visual acuity, a more significant flattening of the steepest meridian, and a higher chance of an effect greater than one diopter power. Conclusions: Corneal crosslinking (CXL) was effective in halting the progression of keratoconus using both methods. Accelerated CXL is faster and more comfortable for patients, with similar efficiency to standard CXL.
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.