ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Two-year outcomes of accelerated contact lens-assisted corneal crosslinking versus accelerated corneal crosslinking: a comparative study.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the 24-month outcomes of accelerated contact lens-assisted corneal crosslinking (A-CACXL) in thin corneas (< 400 microns) versus conventional accelerated CXL (A-CXL) in progressive keratoconus patients.
methodsThis study included progressive keratoconus patients who underwent A-CACXL (9 mW/cm
resultsThe study enrolled 41 eyes; 20 eyes underwent A-CACXL and 21 eyes underwent A-CXL. Preoperative BSCVA, Kmax, K1, and K2 values were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). Preoperative thinnest corneal pachymetry measurements were significantly less in A-CACXL group (384.8 ± 25.2 vs. 450.4 ± 35.7; p < 0.001). ΔBSCVA, RI, and ΔKmax were similar in A-CACXL and A-CXL groups (- 0.14 ± 0.27 vs. - 0.17 ± 0.18; 5.9 D ± 4.9 D vs. 4.6 D ± 2.5 D; - 2.0 ± 3.5 D vs. - 2.0 ± 3.1 D; respectively). A-CACXL showed 95% of eyes halting progression, with 60% showing regression, similar to A-CXL (57.1% regression, 100% halting progression) (p = 0.521). In the A-CACXL group, curvature-based index (ARC) improved significantly (p = 0.002), pachymetric indices (ARTmax, RPIavg) worsened significantly (p = 0.002, 0.026), while no change was observed in aberrometric parameters (p > 0.05).
conclusionIn eyes with thin corneas and progressive keratoconic condition, the safety and effectiveness of A-CACXL seemed comparable to that of A-CXL at the 2-year follow-up. Both techniques yielded similar visual, keratometric, tomographic, and aberrometric results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40802143What 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.