Skip to main content

Table 3 Mean differences in the main outcomes and adverse events in non-randomized studies of interventions after corneal collagen cross-linking (epi-on vs. epi-off)

From: Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study or subgroup

Epi-off CXL

Epi-on CXL

Mean ± SD

n (%)

n

Mean ± SD

n (%)

n

Kmax (D)

 Vinciguerra et al. 2019a [47]

− 0.1 ± 4.6

20

− 0.4 ± 4.4

20

 Jouve et al. 2017b [52]

− 1.1 ± 4.2

40

0.2 ± 5.2

40

 Henriquez et al. 2017a [53]

− 0.9 ± 5.2

25

0.1 ± 5.3

36

 Eraslan et al. 2017a [55]

− 1.4 ± 2.6

18

− 0.6 ± 3.1

18

 Vinciguerra et al. 2016a [57]

− 1.0 ± 1.5

20

− 0.3 ± 1.9

20

UDVA (logMAR)

 Rossi et al. 2018 [51]

− 0.1 ± 0.2

10

− 0.2 ± 0.2*

10*

− 0.1 ± 0.2Þ

10Þ

 Henriquez et al. 2017 [53]

− 0.1 ± 0.4

25

− 0.1 ± 0.2

36

 Eraslan et al. 2017 [55]

− 0.0 ± 0.1

18

− 0.1 ± 0.2

18

CDVA (logMAR)

 Vinciguerra et al. 2019 [47]

− 0.1 ± 0.1

20

− 0.1 ± 0.2

20

 Rossi et al. 2018 [51]

− 0.1 ± 0.1

10

− 0.1 ± 0.0*

10*

− 0.1 ± 0.1 Þ

10Þ

 Jouve et al. 2017 [52]

− 0.1 ± 0.1

40

− 0.1 ± 0.2

40

 Henriquez et al. 2017 [53]

− 0.1 ± 0.1

25

− 0.1 ± 0.1

36

 Eraslan et al. 2017 [55]

− 0.1 ± 0.1

18

− 0.1 ± 0.1

18

 Vinciguerra et al. 2016 [57]

− 0.0 ± 0.1

20

− 0.1 ± 0.1

20

Higher Order Aberrations (µm)

 Vinciguerra et al. 2019 [47]

− 0.1 ± 0.3

20

− 0.7 ± 0.2

20

 Vinciguerra et al. 2016 [57]

− 0.0 ± 0.2

20

− 0.3 ± 0.8

20

 Comatic Aberrations

 Vinciguerra et al. 2019 [47]

− 0.3 ± 1.0

20

1.7 ± 0.3

20

 Rossi et al. 2018 [51]

− 0.4 ± 1.2

10

− 0.7 ± 1.4*

10*

− 0.7 ± 1.3 Þ

10Þ

 Eraslan et al. 2017 [55]

− 0.2 ± 0.3

18

− 0.1 ± 0.5

18

 Vinciguerra et al. 2016 [57]

− 0.2 ± 0.3

20

− 1.2 ± 1.6

20

Demarcation Line (depth in µm at 1 month)

 Jouve et al. 2017 [52]

291.0 ± 61.0

40

216.0 ± 49.0

40

 Eraslan et al. 2017 [55]

272.3 ± 28.6

18

136.6 ± 17.9

18

 Central corneal thickness (µm)

 Rossi et al. 2018 [51]

− 2.9 ± 18.9

10

− 1.6 ± 35.5*

10*

− 4.7 ± 30.2 Þ

10Þ

Corneal Thinnest Point (µm)

 Vinciguerra et al. 2019 [47]

− 57.0 ± 103.0

20

5.0 ± 38.0

20

 Henriquez et al. 2017 [53]

− 12.5 ± 40.2

25

1.5 ± 51.5

36

 Eraslan et al. 2017 [55]

− 11.3 ± 14.9

18

− 8.8 ± 14.8

18

 Vinciguerra et al. 2016 [57]

− 41.1 ± 35.3

20

1.0 ± 7.2

20

ECD (cells/mm2)

 Rossi et al. 2018 [51]

− 32.7 ± 99.3

10

− 46.1 ± 197.9*

10*

− 27.0 ± 62.5Þ

10Þ

KC progression

 Jouve et al. 2017 [52]

3 (7.5%)

40

8 (20.0%)

40

 Henriquez et al. 2017 [53]

3 (12.0%)

25

2 (5.6%)

36

Lost ≥ 2 lines CDVA

 Eraslan et al. 2017 [55]

0 (0.0%)

18

1 (5.6%)

18

Persistent stromal haze

 Henriquez et al. 2017 [53]

1 (0.1%)

25

0 (0.0%)

36

 Eraslan et al. 2017 [55]

5 (27.8%)

18

0 (0.0%)

18

 Sterile infiltrates

 Henriquez et al. 2017 [53]

1 (0.1%)

25

0 (0.0%)

36

  1. CXL = corneal collagen cross-linking; CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity; D = diopter; ECD endothelial cell density; KC = keratoconus; Kmax = maximum keratometry; logMAR = logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; n (%)= absolute frequency (relative frequency); SD = standard deviation; UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity
  2. *Transepithelial CXL treatment study group
  3. ÞIontophoresis CXL treatment study group
  4. aScheimpflug imaging analysis (Oculus Pentacam GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany)
  5. bScanning slit technique (Orbscan IIz; Bausch & LombSurgical, Rochester, NY)