Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2022
Comparison of transepithelial and conventional photorefractive keratectomy in myopic and myopic astigmatism patients: a randomized contralateral trial.
Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the study design and statistical practices in randomized controlled trials on myopia treatment (2019-2023).BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism-a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Thermal load management in photorefractive keratectomy: a comprehensive review of cooling strategies.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- A dual-drug chitosan-hyaluronic acid bandage contact lens accelerates corneal re-epithelialization in a rabbit mechanical debridement model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes and safety of preservative-free diclofenac sodium eye drops in SPT-assisted transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Association Between Preoperative Negative Emotional States and Eye Movement During Photorefractive Keratectomy.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2025Article
- Postoperative Pain Comparison Between Alcohol-Assisted and Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy Using Nepafenac Treatment: A Novel Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Postoperative Pain Comparison Between Alcohol-Assisted and Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy Using Nepafenac Treatment: A Novel Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy Compared to Conventional Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Central Toxic Keratopathy after Photorefractive Keratectomy: Two-Year Follow-Up Case Report and Review of the Literature.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) in terms of corneal epithelial healing rate, postoperative pain, postoperative discomfort, and visual and refraction outcomes compared to mechanical epithelial debridement PRK (mPRK) and alcohol-assisted PRK (aaPRK).
methodsIn this double-masked, randomized clinical trial, thirty-nine patients underwent tPRK in one eye and mPRK in the fellow eye (arm A), and 33 patients underwent tPRK in one eye and aaPRK in the contralateral eye (arm B). All surgical procedures were done using the Schwind Amaris excimer laser. The area of corneal epithelial defect in all eyes was captured and analyzed using ImageJ software.
resultsMean epithelial healing time was respectively 3.74 ± 0.82 and 3.59 ± 0.79 days in tPRK versus mPRK (P = 0.21) in arm A, and 3.67 ± 0.92 and 3.67 ± 0.74 days in tPRK versus aaPRK (P = 1.00) in arm B. Accounting for the initial corneal epithelial defect area, the epithelial healing rate was faster in conventional PRK groups compared to tPRK (both P<0.001) in both arms. However, there was no significant difference in safety, efficacy, spherical equivalent refractive accuracy, or corneal haze development between tPRK and conventional PRK groups (all P > 0.05).
conclusionsAll three methods are effective in terms of visual and refractive outcomes. However, although time to complete re-epithelialization was similar with the three methods, the epithelial healing rate was faster in conventional PRK considering the initial corneal epithelial defect area, and the patients experienced less pain and discomfort in the first postoperative day.
trial registrationIRCT, IRCT20200317046804N1 . Retrospectively registered 5 May 2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.