Protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of clinical outcomes following accelerated versus conventional corneal collagen cross-linking for corneal ectasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collagen cross-linking (CXL) is an evolving procedure that enhances the biomechanical rigidity of the cornea and can slow or halt ectatic disease. CXL requires delivery of 5.4 J/cm 2 of ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation to a cornea saturated with riboflavin in order to induce cross-link formation. The conventional CXL procedure achieves this fluence by exposing the cornea to a 3 mW/cm 2 UVA lamp for 30 min; however, some surgeons have proposed accelerated protocols which achieve the same fluence in a shorter period of time by using a higher power light source. Whether accelerated protocols are as effective in arresting ectasia as the established conventional procedure remains unclear. Accordingly, this study will systematically review and synthesise the evidence on accelerated CXL and compare it to the conventional approach across an array of clinical outcomes. We will search 16 electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, from inception to February 1, 2019. We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing accelerated and conventional CXL for any corneal ectatic disease. Two reviewers will independently screen search results to identify eligible articles, complete data collection, and conduct quality assessment. The quality of individual trials will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Our primary outcome will be the change in maximal keratometry ( K max ) at 12 months following treatment. Additional outcomes will include: incidence of disease progression, incidence of serious adverse events, as well as change in K max at longest follow-up, mean stromal demarcation line depth, mean uncorrected distance visual acuity, mean corrected distance visual acuity, mean K max , mean endothelial cell density, mean central corneal thickness, mean spherical equivalent, mean intraocular pressure, and mean corneal power, at 12 months following treatment. We will calculate relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences and corresponding 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be performed to investigate heterogeneity. We will rate the overall quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence on accelerated and conventional CXL approaches and serve to inform clinical practice, medical device design, and future research. Evaluating variations of the CXL protocol aimed at reducing treatment duration is of critical importance and a prerequisite to expanding treatment availability to more patients. PROSPERO CRD42018104151
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.038 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".