FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2914600478> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2914600478 abstract "Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the development of recurrent corneal erosion following corneal trauma have not been firmly established. Once recurrent corneal erosion develops, simple medical therapy (standard treatment) may lead to resolution of the episode. However, some people continue to suffer when such therapy fails and repeated episodes of erosion develop. A number of treatment and prophylactic options are then available but there is no agreement as to the best option. This review version is an update to the original version published in 2007 and a previous update published in 2012.To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of regimens for the prophylaxis of further recurrent corneal erosion episodes, the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion and prophylaxis of the development of recurrent corneal erosion following trauma.We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 14 December 2017.We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared a prophylactic or treatment regimen with another prophylaxis/treatment or no prophylaxis/treatment for people with recurrent corneal erosion.We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. We considered the following outcome measures: resolution of symptoms after treatment; recurrence after complete or partial resolution; symptoms (pain); adverse effects (corneal haze, astigmatism). We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE for the three most clinically relevant comparisons.We included eight randomised and two quasi-randomised controlled trials in the review, encompassing 505 participants. Seven studies were from Europe (Germany, Sweden and the UK), two from East Asia (Hong Kong and Japan) and one from Australia. Nine of the studies examined treatments for episodes of recurrent corneal erosions and one study considered prophylaxis to prevent development of recurrent corneal erosions after injury. Two of the nine treatment studies also enrolled participants in a study of prophylaxis to prevent further episodes of recurrent corneal erosions. The studies were poorly reported; we judged only one study low risk of bias on all domains.Two studies compared therapeutic contact lens with topical lubrication but one of these studies was published over 30 years ago and used a therapeutic contact lens that is no longer in common use. The more recent study was a two-centre UK study with 29 participants. It provided low-certainty evidence on resolution of symptoms after treatment with similar number of participants in both groups experiencing resolution of symptoms at four months (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.53). There was very low-certainty evidence on recurrence after partial or total resolution at seven months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.54). There was no evidence of an important difference in pain score (score of 3 in the contact lens group and score of 2 in the topical lubrication group, low-certainty evidence) and no adverse effects were reported. The older study, using a contact lens no longer in common use, found an increased risk of pain and complications with the contact lens compared with hypromellose drops and paraffin ointment at night.A single-centre, Australian study, with 33 participants, provided low-certainty evidence of an increased risk of recurrence with phototherapeutic keratectomy compared with alcohol delamination but with wide confidence intervals, compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.37). Time to recurrence was similar in both groups (6.5 and 6 months, low-certainty evidence). On average people receiving phototherapeutic keratectomy reported less pain but confidence intervals included no difference or greater pain (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.83, low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported.A 48-participant study in Hong Kong found recurrences were less common in people given diamond burr superficial keratectomy after epithelial debridement compared with sham diamond burr treatment after epithelial debridement (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50, moderate-certainty evidence). The study did not report pain scores but adverse effects such as corneal haze (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.87, low-certainty evidence) and astigmatism (0.88 versus 0.44 dioptres, moderate-certainty evidence) were similar between the groups.A study comparing transepithelial versus subepithelial excimer laser ablation in 100 people found low-certainty evidence of a small increased risk of recurrence of corneal erosion at one-year follow-up in people given the transepithelial compared with subepithelial technique, however, the confidence intervals were wide and compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.48, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.Other treatment comparisons included in this review were only addressed by studies published two decades or more ago. The results of these studies were inconclusive: excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement) versus no excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement), epithelial debridement versus anterior stromal puncture, anterior stromal puncture versus therapeutic contact lens, oral oxytetracycline and topical prednisolone (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus oral oxytetracycline (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus 'standard therapy'.Well-designed, masked, randomised controlled trials using standardised methods are needed to establish the benefits of new and existing prophylactic and treatment regimes for recurrent corneal erosion. Studies included in this review have been of insufficient size and quality to provide firm evidence to inform the development of management guidelines. International consensus is also needed to progress research efforts towards evaluation of the major effective treatments for recurrent corneal erosions." @default.
• W2914600478 created "2019-02-21" @default.
• W2914600478 creator A5065980244 @default.
• W2914600478 creator A5090539159 @default.
• W2914600478 date "2018-07-09" @default.
• W2914600478 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2914600478 title "Interventions for recurrent corneal erosions" @default.
• W2914600478 cites W144035520 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W1918945033 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W1966387777 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W1972902877 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W1973254258 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W1983524082 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W1986360186 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W1994468179 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W1997937857 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2008014733 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2021867365 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2032192840 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2034999743 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2049831225 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2059344503 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2063084003 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2063934495 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2086131282 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2086421659 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2087725216 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2087810607 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2095944388 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2100068907 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2119017885 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2134048257 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2144892335 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2147488235 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2162991970 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2313374048 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2318015343 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2320494309 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W2331238778 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W41549466 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W4247900460 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W4299498184 @default.
• W2914600478 cites W57283754 @default.
• W2914600478 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001861.pub4" @default.
• W2914600478 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29985545" @default.
• W2914600478 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2914600478 type Work @default.
• W2914600478 sameAs 2914600478 @default.
• W2914600478 citedByCount "15" @default.
• W2914600478 countsByYear W29146004782018 @default.
• W2914600478 countsByYear W29146004782019 @default.
• W2914600478 countsByYear W29146004782020 @default.
• W2914600478 countsByYear W29146004782022 @default.
• W2914600478 countsByYear W29146004782023 @default.
• W2914600478 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2914600478 hasAuthorship W2914600478A5065980244 @default.
• W2914600478 hasAuthorship W2914600478A5090539159 @default.
• W2914600478 hasBestOaLocation W29146004782 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C197934379 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C2776621570 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C2776882836 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C2780603455 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C2781413609 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C118487528 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C118552586 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C126322002 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C141071460 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C17744445 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C197934379 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C199539241 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C27415008 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C2776621570 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C2776882836 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C2779473830 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C2780603455 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C2781413609 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C535046627 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C71924100 @default.
• W2914600478 hasConceptScore W2914600478C95190672 @default.
• W2914600478 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W2914600478 hasLocation W29146004781 @default.
• W2914600478 hasLocation W29146004782 @default.
• W2914600478 hasLocation W29146004783 @default.
• W2914600478 hasLocation W29146004784 @default.
• W2914600478 hasOpenAccess W2914600478 @default.
• W2914600478 hasPrimaryLocation W29146004781 @default.
• W2914600478 hasRelatedWork W1586374228 @default.
• W2914600478 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2914600478 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.

• next