Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Nov 2.
Published in final edited form as: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018 Oct 9;44(12):1507–1516. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.08.021

Table 1.

Characteristics of 5 randomized controlled trials evaluating transepithelial CXL versus epi-off CXL.

Study* (Y) ClinicalTrials.gov Country Follow-Up (Mo) Treated Eyes (N) Mean Age (Y) Mean Baseline Kmax (D)

Transepithelial CXL Epi-Off CXL Transepithelial CXL Epi-Off CXL Transepithelial CXL Epi-Off CXL

Al Fayez16 (2015) Not registered Saudi Arabia 36 34 36 24.8 24.1 N/A N/A
Bikbova18 (2016) NCT02456961 Russia 24 76 73 28.0 30.0 48.28 48.83
Lombardo19 (2017) NCT02117999 Italy 12 22 12 31.0 29.4 54.7 54.7
Rossi14 (2015) Not registered Italy 12 10 10 28.0 30.4 52.41 51.64
Rush17 (2017) NCT01708538 United States 24 75 56 29.8 31.5 51.34 52.03
Soeters15 (2015) NCT02349165 Netherlands 12 35 26 26.91 25.85 56.4 57.8
Stojanovic13 (2014) NCT01181219 Norway 12 20 20 29.45 29.45 52.68 53.59

CXL = corneal crosslinking; epi-off = epithelium-off; Kmax = maximum keratometry; N/A = Not available

*

First author