From the Guidelines
Research gaps in corneal ophthalmology that could be addressed through systematic reviews include several key questions, such as what is the comparative effectiveness of different surgical techniques for corneal edema, including PK, DSAEK, and DMEK, in terms of visual acuity, rejection rates, and endothelial cell loss 1. Some of the key questions that could be addressed through systematic reviews include:
- What is the optimal surgical technique for corneal edema, and how do the outcomes of PK, DSAEK, and DMEK compare in terms of visual acuity, rejection rates, and endothelial cell loss 1?
- How do long-term outcomes of DMEK compare to DSAEK in terms of visual acuity, rejection rates, and endothelial cell loss, and what are the implications for clinical practice 1?
- What is the effectiveness of different treatment approaches for infectious keratitis caused by resistant organisms, and how do outcomes differ between developing and developed countries 1?
- What are the long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of corneal refractive procedures in patients with autoimmune disorders, and how do different topical anti-inflammatory regimens compare in managing ocular surface inflammation in dry eye disease 1?
- How do outcomes of corneal transplantation differ between developing and developed countries, and what factors contribute to these differences, including the optimal timing and approach for corneal transplantation in children with congenital corneal opacities 1? These questions represent significant knowledge gaps where systematic reviews could synthesize existing evidence to guide clinical practice and identify areas needing further research. Key areas that require further investigation include the comparative effectiveness of different surgical techniques, the optimal management approach for neurotrophic keratopathy, and the long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of corneal refractive procedures in patients with autoimmune disorders. The most critical research gap is the lack of high-quality systematic reviews that compare the effectiveness of different surgical techniques for corneal edema, including PK, DSAEK, and DMEK, which could be addressed through a systematic review that synthesizes existing evidence and provides guidance for clinical practice 1.
From the Research
Research Gaps in Corneal Ophthalmology
The following are potential research gaps in corneal ophthalmology that could be filled with a systematic review:
- What is the optimal duration and intensity of corneal cross-linking for the treatment of fungal keratitis, and how does it vary depending on the type of fungal infection 2, 3?
- Can corneal cross-linking be used as a primary treatment for fungal keratitis, or is it more effective as an adjunct therapy to antifungal medications 4, 5?
- How does corneal cross-linking compare to other treatments for fungal keratitis, such as antifungal medications or surgical interventions, in terms of efficacy and safety 6, 5?
- What are the long-term outcomes and potential complications of corneal cross-linking for the treatment of fungal keratitis, and how can they be minimized 2, 3?
- Can corneal cross-linking be used to prevent fungal keratitis in high-risk patients, such as those with a history of ocular trauma or contact lens use 6?
- How does the efficacy of corneal cross-linking for fungal keratitis vary depending on the severity and location of the infection, and can it be used to treat advanced or peripheral cases 4, 5?