Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 24, 2026

Three Different Protocols of Corneal Collagen Crosslinking in Keratoconus: Conventional, Accelerated and Iontophoresis
Published on: November 12, 2015
Transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal collagen cross-linking for corneal ectasia: protocol for a systematic
Siddharth Nath1, Carl Shen2, Alex Koziarz3
1Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery and Department of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Introduction:
Corneal ectasias are progressive, degenerative ocular diseases defined by abnormal structural changes in the cornea, leading to distortion of vision and substantial reduction in quality of life. Corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) increases the biomechanical rigidity of the cornea and has been shown to halt ectatic processes. The established CXL protocol requires removal of the corneal epithelium. However, some surgeons have proposed transepithelial approaches to enhance patient recovery and minimise adverse events. Whether novel transepithelial approaches are as effective in arresting ectasia as the established epithelium-off protocol remains unclear. This study will systematically review the evidence on transepithelial CXL approaches and compare it to the epithelium-off protocol.
Methods And Analysis:
We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing transepithelial and epithelium-off CXL for any corneal ectasia. We will search 16 electronic databases including MEDLINE and Embase, as well as the grey literature. Two reviewers will independently screen search results to identify eligible studies, complete data abstraction and conduct quality assessment. We will assess the quality of individual RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Our primary outcome will be the change in maximal keratometry at 12 months after treatment, and we will examine 11 additional outcomes. We will summarise our analyses by measures of association (relative risk or odds ratio) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted to explore heterogeneity. The overall quality of evidence will be rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Ethics And Dissemination:
Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review as it draws from previously published data. Results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and discussed at conferences and seminars.
Prospero Registration Number:
CRD42018102069.
More Related Videos
08:36Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
04:48Establishing a Severe Corneal Inflammation Model in Rats Based on Corneal Epithelium Curettage Combined with Corneal Sutures
Published on: November 22, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Software for Data Analysis and Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Trial and Error and Algorithm
Crossing Over
The homologous pairs of sister chromosomes—one from the maternal and one from the paternal genome—then begin to align alongside each other lengthwise, matching corresponding DNA positions in a process...
Qualitative Analysis
For instance, group IV...