Table 4.
Subgroup | MD | 95% CI | P |
---|---|---|---|
Kmax flattening (D) | |||
Low risk of bias | − 1.69 | − 2.62 – − 0.76 | 0.004* |
With iontophoresis | − 0.50 | − 3.67 – 2.67 | 0.757 |
UDVA (logMAR) | |||
Low risk of bias | − 0.05 | − 0.20 – 0.10 | 0.491 |
With iontophoresis | − 0.01 | − 0.23 – 0.21 | 0.930 |
CDVA (logMAR) | |||
Low risk of bias | 0.06 | − 0.004 – 0.118 | 0.069 |
With iontophoresis | 0.05 | − 0.01 – 0.11 | 0.127 |
CCT (μm) | |||
Low risk of bias | − 2.0 | − 18.38 – 14.38 | 0.811 |
With iontophoresis | − 4.76 | − 14.53 – 5.02 | 0.340 |
ECD (cells/mm2) | |||
Low risk of bias | − 48.82 | − 180.79 – 83.15 | 0.468 |
With iontophoresis | 3.0 | − 22.86 – 28.86 | 0.820 |
CCT central corneal thickness; CDVA corrected distance visual acuity; CI confidence interval; D diopter; ECD endothelial cell density; logMAR logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; MD mean differences; UDVA uncorrected distance visual acuity
All the results were obtained through fixed-effects models because we only had two studies to summarize. If the value of the summary effect is negative, epi-on corneal collagen cross-linking would have more mean differences. Otherwise, epi-off would have this condition
*indicates statistical significance