Question · asked by 1 review
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL: Proportion of participants who gained 10 or more logMAR letters from baseline
- Population
- participants with keratoconus
- Intervention
- Transepithelial CXL
- Comparison
- epithelium‐off CXL
- Outcome
- Proportion of participants who gained 10 or more logMAR letters from baseline
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants who gained 10 or more logMAR letters from baseline · participants with keratoconus The review found no eligible studies for this question. Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.