Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2 questions · 2 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 50%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 50%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL

Proportion of participants who lost 10 or more logMAR letters from baseline · participants with keratoconus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL

Proportion of participants who lost 10 or more logMAR letters from baseline · participants with progressive keratoconus

It is very uncertain whether transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis changes proportion of participants who lost 10 or more logMAR letters from… compared with epithelium‐off CXL (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1 [0.88, 1.13]
1 study · 34 participants
Very low