Topical antibiotics vs another topical antibiotic or placebo
Time to clinical cure · children and adults with corneal abrasion
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedVery low
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
17 questions · 17 findings · 2 reviews · Eyes and Vision
No studies found 2 · 11.8%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 12 · 70.6%Low 2 · 11.8%Moderate 1 · 5.9%High 0 · 0%
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL
Mean change in maximum K from baseline or final value—at 12 months or more (diopters) · participants with keratoconus
1 finding from 1 review
- Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted5 studies · 177 participantsVery low
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL
Proportion of participants whose maximum K decreased by at least 2 diopters—at 24 months · participants with progressive keratoconus
It is very uncertain whether transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis changes proportion of participants whose maximum K decreased by at least 2… 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 onlyno estimate extracted1 study · 31 participantsVery low
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL
Proportion of participants whose maximum K increased by at least 2 diopters—at 24 months · participants with progressive keratoconus
It is very uncertain whether transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis changes proportion of participants whose maximum K increased by at least 2… 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 onlyno estimate extracted1 study · 31 participantsVery low
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL
Proportion of participants whose keratoconus remained stable—at 24 months · participants with progressive keratoconus
It is very uncertain whether transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis changes proportion of participants whose keratoconus remained stable—at 24… 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 onlyRR 0.92 [0.76, 1.12]1 study · 31 participantsVery low
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL
Change in visual acuity (logMAR) ‐ 12 months (negative is better) · participants with progressive keratoconus
1 finding from 1 review
- Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted2 studies · 51 participantsLow
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL
Proportion of participants who gained 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 gained 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 onlyRR 2.73 [0.36, 20.74]1 study · 34 participantsVery low
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 onlyRR 1 [0.88, 1.13]1 study · 34 participantsVery low
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL
Adverse outcomes · participants with progressive keratoconus
1 finding from 1 review
- Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted3 studies · 203 participantsLow
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL
Proportion of participants whose maximum K decreased by at least 2 diopters—at 12 months · participants with keratoconus
It is very uncertain whether transepithelial CXL changes proportion of participants whose maximum K decreased by at least 2… 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 onlyRR 0.32 [0.09, 1.12]1 study · 61 participantsVery low
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL
Proportion of participants whose maximum K increased by at least 2 diopters—at 12 months · participants with keratoconus
It is very uncertain whether transepithelial CXL changes proportion of participants whose maximum K increased by at least 2… 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 onlyno estimate extracted1 study · 61 participantsVery low
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL
Proportion of participants whose keratoconus remained stable—at 12 months · participants with keratoconus
1 finding from 1 review
- Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted2 studies · 131 participantsVery low
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL
Change in visual acuity (logMAR) ‐ 12 months (negative is better) · participants with keratoconus
1 finding from 1 review
- Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted4 studies · 137 participantsVery low
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.
1 finding from 1 review
- Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
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 onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL
Adverse outcomes—corneal haze or scarring · participants with keratoconus
Transepithelial CXL probably leads to lower adverse outcomes—corneal haze or scarring compared with epithelium‐off CXL (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted4 studies · 221 participantsModerate
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL
Mean change in maximum K from baseline or final value—at 12 months or more (diopters) · participants with progressive keratoconus
1 finding from 1 review
- Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted2 studies · 51 participantsVery low