↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking surgery versus standard corneal collagen crosslinking surgery for keratoconus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy and safety of transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking surgery versus standard corneal collagen crosslinking surgery for keratoconus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12886-017-0657-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenwei Li, Bin Wang

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking (transepithelial CXL) versus standard corneal collagen crosslinking (epithelium-off CXL) on keratoconus. Eligible studies were identified by systematically searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase. Topographic parameters, corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA), and corneal thickness (CT) were assessed by the pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) of the change from baseline to the end of follow up. Quality was assessed according to Cochrane handbook. And we used Review Manager to analysis the included trials. Three trials involving 244 eyes were evaluated, with 111 eyes in the standard CXL group and 133 eyes in the transepithelial CXL group. The pooled results showed that there were significant differences between the two groups in maximum keratometry (mean difference = 1.05D, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.92, P = 0.02)),and the standard CXL is more effective in decreasing the maximum keratometry at least 12 months after operation; the transepithelial CXL group gained more improvement in CDVA (mean difference = -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02, P = 0.007);there were no significant differences in uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA) between the two groups (mean difference = -0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.15, P = 0.75). A similar change was found in corneal thickness (mean difference = 4.35, 95% CI -0.43 to 9.13, P = 0.07)). The standard CXL is more effective in decreasing the maximum keratometry than the transepithelial CXL; the transepithelial CXL provided favorable visual outcomes; they both exhibit similar safety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Other 9 12%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,458,307
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#2,142
of 2,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#377,608
of 441,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#35
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,401 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.