ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Clinical features of patients who needed more than one-time photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical features of patients who had undergone photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) more than once. Identifying these pre-operative parameters can help in assessing patients at higher risk of repeat PRK.
methodA historical cohort study was carried out at Farabi Eye Hospital between 2015 to 2022. The data were obtained from electronic records, refined, and divided into two groups based on PRK outcome: cases that underwent a second round of PRK and controls that underwent PRK only once. Only patients with at least 12 months postoperative follow-up were included. The baseline preoperative data, including subjective & objective refraction, spherical equivalent, anterior and posterior keratometry, and corneal pachymetry at the apex & thinnest location, were collected. The PRK surgery was performed using Schwind Amaris 1050 RS by Sirius CSO, and the anterior segment measurements were taken using Pentacam® HR.
resultsForty eight patients were included, with 17 in the case group who underwent a second round of PRK and 31 in the control group who had a single PRK. The mean ages of the control and case patients were 32.1±7.8 and 31.00±8.62 years, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed between the control and case groups in the mean subjective sphere (control -3.17±2.77 vs. case 0.07±2.50,P<.001), subjective astigmatism (control -0.90±0.71 vs. case -2.06±1.26,P<.001*), subjective spherical equivalent (SE) (control -3.62±2.77 vs. case-0.96±2.73, P<.001), objective refraction sphere (control -2.75±2.94 vs. case 0.57±3.00, P<.001), objective astigmatic refraction (control -0.91±0.75 vs. case -1.97±1.28, P = .003), and SE of objective refraction (control-3.20±2.30 vs. case -0.41±3.05, P<.001). There were significant differences in anterior flat keratometry (K1) (control 43.93±1.17 vs. case 42.75±1.64, P<0.05) and anterior corneal astigmatism (control 1.03±0.57 vs. case 1.82±1.25, P<0.05) between patients who needed more than one PRK surgery versus those who successfully managed with PRK once.
conclusionPatients who needed more than one PRK surgery had significantly lower sphere and SE, greater astigmatism, lower anterior flat-K, decreased corneal thickness, and greater anterior corneal astigmatism than patients who needed only one PRK surgery.
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.