4.4 Review

Photoactivated chromophore-corneal cross-linking accelerates corneal healing in fungal keratitis: an updated meta-analysis

期刊

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02380-5

关键词

PACK-CXL; Keratitis; Infection; Meta-analysis; Systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adjuvant PACK-CXL treatment can accelerate the healing of fungal keratitis. However, more rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to determine its clinical efficacy and safety.
Aim To determine the effectiveness and safety of photoactivated chromophore-corneal cross-linking (PACK-CXL) adjuvant in infectious keratitis by April 5, 2022.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard antibiotic treatment (SAT) plus PACK-CXL to SAT in infectious keratitis in Embase, MEDLINE with PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. We independently screened and extracted data using predesigned tables. Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool was utilized to examine the quality of RCTs. A random-effects model was employed to determine the overall effect size of the meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, and Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was also performed to examine the quality of evidence.Results Seven eligible RCTs with 283 patients were acquired. Adjuvant PACK-CXL reduced the time needed to perform corneal healing in fungal keratitis (- 1.33 months; 95% CI, - 1.83 to - 0.42, I-2 = 0%, P < 0.05) as compared to SAT alone. The risks of adverse events were not significantly different both in fungal and bacterial keratitis. Due to the substantial heterogeneity among studies, such as population, the type and severity of infectious keratitis, drug regimens of SAT, PACK-CXL protocol, and the judgment of subjective outcomes, the evidence grade was low.Conclusion Adjuvant PACK-CXL accelerates fungal keratitis healing as compared to SAT alone. But more rigorous RCTs are required to determine the clinical effectiveness and safety.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据