Clinical Evaluation and Validation of the Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus Score

IMPORTANCE: Defining keratoconus progression is fundamental in clinical decision making because crosslinking treatments are indicated when the disease is considered progressive. Currently, there is no consensus which parameters should be used to define progression. OBJECTIVE: To assess and validate...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of ophthalmology (1960) 2019-06, Vol.137 (6), p.610-616
Hauptverfasser: Wisse, Robert P. L, Simons, Rob W. P, van der Vossen, Martijn J. B, Muijzer, Marc B, Soeters, Nienke, Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A, Godefrooij, Daniel A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 616
container_issue 6
container_start_page 610
container_title Archives of ophthalmology (1960)
container_volume 137
creator Wisse, Robert P. L
Simons, Rob W. P
van der Vossen, Martijn J. B
Muijzer, Marc B
Soeters, Nienke
Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A
Godefrooij, Daniel A
description IMPORTANCE: Defining keratoconus progression is fundamental in clinical decision making because crosslinking treatments are indicated when the disease is considered progressive. Currently, there is no consensus which parameters should be used to define progression. OBJECTIVE: To assess and validate a novel clinical scoring system as an easy-to-use assessment tool for crosslinking treatment in patients with keratoconus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study at 2 academic treatment centers. Patients with keratoconus referred between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2014, with 2-year follow-up were included. Analysis began March 2017. INTERVENTIONS: The Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus (DUCK) score is based on changes in 5 clinical parameters that are routinely assessed: age, visual acuity, refraction error, keratometry, and subjective patient experience. The DUCK score is derived by scoring 0 to 2 points per item, and cutoffs were determined by clinical experience. We compared the DUCK scores to the conventional 1.0-diopter increase in maximum keratometry criterion, within the last 12 months, in a longitudinal discovery and a validation cohort. Sensitivity analyses and intraitem correlations were performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall treatment rate reduction and the duly withheld treatment rate. RESULTS: A total of 504 eyes of 388 patients were available for analysis on disease progression in the course of 12 and 24 months. Baseline patient characteristics of the discovery cohort and the validation cohort were comparable in terms of age (mean [SD], 26.8 [8.3] years vs 26.3 [9.1]), sex (216 of 332 [65%] vs 123 of 172 [72%] men), and maximum keratometry (mean [SD], 53.5 [7.1] vs 52.7 [6.3]). Adhering to the DUCK score, rather than maximum keratometry, was associated with a reduction in overall treatment rate by 23% (95% CI, 18%-30%), without increasing the risk of disease progression (ie, the rate of progression for both groups was equal; ±0%). The DUCK score appears to better identify eyes that were duly withheld treatment by 35% (95% CI, 22%-49%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results provide validation of the DUCK score as a tool to determine whether a crosslinking treatment might be warranted. Compared with the conventional maximum keratometry criterion of more than 1.0 diopter, the DUCK score may better select patients who might benefit from crosslinking treatment. Potentially, it may prevent unnecessary treatments, reduce
doi_str_mv 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.0415
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6567860</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ama_id>2728730</ama_id><sourcerecordid>2244640562</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a467t-7e624ef12622a0671feb3b7632e30d57a8e23c3771fbe2adec09497a45c2fb433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkV1rFDEYhYMottT-AS8k4I03u-Y7MzeCbOsHLQitehveyWQ6WTPJmswU_Pdm2brY5iYJ5zmHvDkIYUrWlBD6fgsTpN04jxCmFNaM0HZNBJXP0Cmjqlkpqvnz41nJE3ReypbU1RAiuHyJTjhpGZGtPkU3m-CjtxDw5T2EBWafIobY458QfH-4pgHPo8MXy2xHvMmplOr55eMdHlLGVy7DnGyKS8G3NmX3Cr0YIBR3_rCfoR-fLr9vvqyuv33-uvl4vQKh9LzSTjHhBsoUY0CUpoPreKcVZ46TXmpoHOOW6yp0jkHvLGlFq0FIy4ZOcH6GPhxyd0s3ud66OGcIZpf9BPmPSeDNYyX60dyle6Ok0o0iNeDdQ0BOvxdXZjP5Yl0IEF1aimG0bWkjFZUVffsE3aYlxzqeYUwIJYhUrFLNgbL7T8puOD6GErPvzjzuzuy7M_vuqvXN_8Mcjf-aqsDrA1ATjirTrNGc8L-ThaLT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2244640562</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical Evaluation and Validation of the Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus Score</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Medical Association Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wisse, Robert P. L ; Simons, Rob W. P ; van der Vossen, Martijn J. B ; Muijzer, Marc B ; Soeters, Nienke ; Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A ; Godefrooij, Daniel A</creator><creatorcontrib>Wisse, Robert P. L ; Simons, Rob W. P ; van der Vossen, Martijn J. B ; Muijzer, Marc B ; Soeters, Nienke ; Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A ; Godefrooij, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><description>IMPORTANCE: Defining keratoconus progression is fundamental in clinical decision making because crosslinking treatments are indicated when the disease is considered progressive. Currently, there is no consensus which parameters should be used to define progression. OBJECTIVE: To assess and validate a novel clinical scoring system as an easy-to-use assessment tool for crosslinking treatment in patients with keratoconus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study at 2 academic treatment centers. Patients with keratoconus referred between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2014, with 2-year follow-up were included. Analysis began March 2017. INTERVENTIONS: The Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus (DUCK) score is based on changes in 5 clinical parameters that are routinely assessed: age, visual acuity, refraction error, keratometry, and subjective patient experience. The DUCK score is derived by scoring 0 to 2 points per item, and cutoffs were determined by clinical experience. We compared the DUCK scores to the conventional 1.0-diopter increase in maximum keratometry criterion, within the last 12 months, in a longitudinal discovery and a validation cohort. Sensitivity analyses and intraitem correlations were performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall treatment rate reduction and the duly withheld treatment rate. RESULTS: A total of 504 eyes of 388 patients were available for analysis on disease progression in the course of 12 and 24 months. Baseline patient characteristics of the discovery cohort and the validation cohort were comparable in terms of age (mean [SD], 26.8 [8.3] years vs 26.3 [9.1]), sex (216 of 332 [65%] vs 123 of 172 [72%] men), and maximum keratometry (mean [SD], 53.5 [7.1] vs 52.7 [6.3]). Adhering to the DUCK score, rather than maximum keratometry, was associated with a reduction in overall treatment rate by 23% (95% CI, 18%-30%), without increasing the risk of disease progression (ie, the rate of progression for both groups was equal; ±0%). The DUCK score appears to better identify eyes that were duly withheld treatment by 35% (95% CI, 22%-49%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results provide validation of the DUCK score as a tool to determine whether a crosslinking treatment might be warranted. Compared with the conventional maximum keratometry criterion of more than 1.0 diopter, the DUCK score may better select patients who might benefit from crosslinking treatment. Potentially, it may prevent unnecessary treatments, reduce exposure to treatment risks, and improve the cost effectiveness of crosslinking.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2168-6165</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-6173</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.0415</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30920597</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Academic Medical Centers ; Acuity ; Adult ; Clinical decision making ; Collagen - metabolism ; Corneal Pachymetry ; Corneal Stroma - metabolism ; Cross-Linking Reagents ; Decision making ; Disease Progression ; Female ; Humans ; Keratoconus ; Keratoconus - diagnosis ; Keratoconus - drug therapy ; Keratoconus - metabolism ; Male ; Netherlands ; Online First ; Ophthalmology ; Original Investigation ; Patients ; Photochemotherapy - methods ; Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use ; Prospective Studies ; Riboflavin - therapeutic use ; Risk assessment ; Sensitivity analysis ; Sickness Impact Profile ; Ultraviolet Rays ; Visual Acuity</subject><ispartof>Archives of ophthalmology (1960), 2019-06, Vol.137 (6), p.610-616</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Medical Association Jun 2019</rights><rights>Copyright 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a467t-7e624ef12622a0671feb3b7632e30d57a8e23c3771fbe2adec09497a45c2fb433</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a467t-7e624ef12622a0671feb3b7632e30d57a8e23c3771fbe2adec09497a45c2fb433</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/articlepdf/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.0415$$EPDF$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.0415$$EHTML$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>64,230,314,776,780,881,3327,27901,27902,76231,76234</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30920597$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wisse, Robert P. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simons, Rob W. P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Vossen, Martijn J. B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muijzer, Marc B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soeters, Nienke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Godefrooij, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical Evaluation and Validation of the Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus Score</title><title>Archives of ophthalmology (1960)</title><addtitle>JAMA Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>IMPORTANCE: Defining keratoconus progression is fundamental in clinical decision making because crosslinking treatments are indicated when the disease is considered progressive. Currently, there is no consensus which parameters should be used to define progression. OBJECTIVE: To assess and validate a novel clinical scoring system as an easy-to-use assessment tool for crosslinking treatment in patients with keratoconus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study at 2 academic treatment centers. Patients with keratoconus referred between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2014, with 2-year follow-up were included. Analysis began March 2017. INTERVENTIONS: The Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus (DUCK) score is based on changes in 5 clinical parameters that are routinely assessed: age, visual acuity, refraction error, keratometry, and subjective patient experience. The DUCK score is derived by scoring 0 to 2 points per item, and cutoffs were determined by clinical experience. We compared the DUCK scores to the conventional 1.0-diopter increase in maximum keratometry criterion, within the last 12 months, in a longitudinal discovery and a validation cohort. Sensitivity analyses and intraitem correlations were performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall treatment rate reduction and the duly withheld treatment rate. RESULTS: A total of 504 eyes of 388 patients were available for analysis on disease progression in the course of 12 and 24 months. Baseline patient characteristics of the discovery cohort and the validation cohort were comparable in terms of age (mean [SD], 26.8 [8.3] years vs 26.3 [9.1]), sex (216 of 332 [65%] vs 123 of 172 [72%] men), and maximum keratometry (mean [SD], 53.5 [7.1] vs 52.7 [6.3]). Adhering to the DUCK score, rather than maximum keratometry, was associated with a reduction in overall treatment rate by 23% (95% CI, 18%-30%), without increasing the risk of disease progression (ie, the rate of progression for both groups was equal; ±0%). The DUCK score appears to better identify eyes that were duly withheld treatment by 35% (95% CI, 22%-49%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results provide validation of the DUCK score as a tool to determine whether a crosslinking treatment might be warranted. Compared with the conventional maximum keratometry criterion of more than 1.0 diopter, the DUCK score may better select patients who might benefit from crosslinking treatment. Potentially, it may prevent unnecessary treatments, reduce exposure to treatment risks, and improve the cost effectiveness of crosslinking.</description><subject>Academic Medical Centers</subject><subject>Acuity</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Collagen - metabolism</subject><subject>Corneal Pachymetry</subject><subject>Corneal Stroma - metabolism</subject><subject>Cross-Linking Reagents</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Disease Progression</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Keratoconus</subject><subject>Keratoconus - diagnosis</subject><subject>Keratoconus - drug therapy</subject><subject>Keratoconus - metabolism</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Online First</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Original Investigation</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Photochemotherapy - methods</subject><subject>Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Riboflavin - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Sickness Impact Profile</subject><subject>Ultraviolet Rays</subject><subject>Visual Acuity</subject><issn>2168-6165</issn><issn>2168-6173</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkV1rFDEYhYMottT-AS8k4I03u-Y7MzeCbOsHLQitehveyWQ6WTPJmswU_Pdm2brY5iYJ5zmHvDkIYUrWlBD6fgsTpN04jxCmFNaM0HZNBJXP0Cmjqlkpqvnz41nJE3ReypbU1RAiuHyJTjhpGZGtPkU3m-CjtxDw5T2EBWafIobY458QfH-4pgHPo8MXy2xHvMmplOr55eMdHlLGVy7DnGyKS8G3NmX3Cr0YIBR3_rCfoR-fLr9vvqyuv33-uvl4vQKh9LzSTjHhBsoUY0CUpoPreKcVZ46TXmpoHOOW6yp0jkHvLGlFq0FIy4ZOcH6GPhxyd0s3ud66OGcIZpf9BPmPSeDNYyX60dyle6Ok0o0iNeDdQ0BOvxdXZjP5Yl0IEF1aimG0bWkjFZUVffsE3aYlxzqeYUwIJYhUrFLNgbL7T8puOD6GErPvzjzuzuy7M_vuqvXN_8Mcjf-aqsDrA1ATjirTrNGc8L-ThaLT</recordid><startdate>20190601</startdate><enddate>20190601</enddate><creator>Wisse, Robert P. L</creator><creator>Simons, Rob W. P</creator><creator>van der Vossen, Martijn J. B</creator><creator>Muijzer, Marc B</creator><creator>Soeters, Nienke</creator><creator>Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A</creator><creator>Godefrooij, Daniel A</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190601</creationdate><title>Clinical Evaluation and Validation of the Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus Score</title><author>Wisse, Robert P. L ; Simons, Rob W. P ; van der Vossen, Martijn J. B ; Muijzer, Marc B ; Soeters, Nienke ; Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A ; Godefrooij, Daniel A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a467t-7e624ef12622a0671feb3b7632e30d57a8e23c3771fbe2adec09497a45c2fb433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Academic Medical Centers</topic><topic>Acuity</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Collagen - metabolism</topic><topic>Corneal Pachymetry</topic><topic>Corneal Stroma - metabolism</topic><topic>Cross-Linking Reagents</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Disease Progression</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Keratoconus</topic><topic>Keratoconus - diagnosis</topic><topic>Keratoconus - drug therapy</topic><topic>Keratoconus - metabolism</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Online First</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Original Investigation</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Photochemotherapy - methods</topic><topic>Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Riboflavin - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Sickness Impact Profile</topic><topic>Ultraviolet Rays</topic><topic>Visual Acuity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wisse, Robert P. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simons, Rob W. P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Vossen, Martijn J. B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muijzer, Marc B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soeters, Nienke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Godefrooij, Daniel A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Archives of ophthalmology (1960)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wisse, Robert P. L</au><au>Simons, Rob W. P</au><au>van der Vossen, Martijn J. B</au><au>Muijzer, Marc B</au><au>Soeters, Nienke</au><au>Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A</au><au>Godefrooij, Daniel A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical Evaluation and Validation of the Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus Score</atitle><jtitle>Archives of ophthalmology (1960)</jtitle><addtitle>JAMA Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2019-06-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>137</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>610</spage><epage>616</epage><pages>610-616</pages><issn>2168-6165</issn><eissn>2168-6173</eissn><abstract>IMPORTANCE: Defining keratoconus progression is fundamental in clinical decision making because crosslinking treatments are indicated when the disease is considered progressive. Currently, there is no consensus which parameters should be used to define progression. OBJECTIVE: To assess and validate a novel clinical scoring system as an easy-to-use assessment tool for crosslinking treatment in patients with keratoconus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study at 2 academic treatment centers. Patients with keratoconus referred between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2014, with 2-year follow-up were included. Analysis began March 2017. INTERVENTIONS: The Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus (DUCK) score is based on changes in 5 clinical parameters that are routinely assessed: age, visual acuity, refraction error, keratometry, and subjective patient experience. The DUCK score is derived by scoring 0 to 2 points per item, and cutoffs were determined by clinical experience. We compared the DUCK scores to the conventional 1.0-diopter increase in maximum keratometry criterion, within the last 12 months, in a longitudinal discovery and a validation cohort. Sensitivity analyses and intraitem correlations were performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall treatment rate reduction and the duly withheld treatment rate. RESULTS: A total of 504 eyes of 388 patients were available for analysis on disease progression in the course of 12 and 24 months. Baseline patient characteristics of the discovery cohort and the validation cohort were comparable in terms of age (mean [SD], 26.8 [8.3] years vs 26.3 [9.1]), sex (216 of 332 [65%] vs 123 of 172 [72%] men), and maximum keratometry (mean [SD], 53.5 [7.1] vs 52.7 [6.3]). Adhering to the DUCK score, rather than maximum keratometry, was associated with a reduction in overall treatment rate by 23% (95% CI, 18%-30%), without increasing the risk of disease progression (ie, the rate of progression for both groups was equal; ±0%). The DUCK score appears to better identify eyes that were duly withheld treatment by 35% (95% CI, 22%-49%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results provide validation of the DUCK score as a tool to determine whether a crosslinking treatment might be warranted. Compared with the conventional maximum keratometry criterion of more than 1.0 diopter, the DUCK score may better select patients who might benefit from crosslinking treatment. Potentially, it may prevent unnecessary treatments, reduce exposure to treatment risks, and improve the cost effectiveness of crosslinking.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>30920597</pmid><doi>10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.0415</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2168-6165
ispartof Archives of ophthalmology (1960), 2019-06, Vol.137 (6), p.610-616
issn 2168-6165
2168-6173
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6567860
source MEDLINE; American Medical Association Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Academic Medical Centers
Acuity
Adult
Clinical decision making
Collagen - metabolism
Corneal Pachymetry
Corneal Stroma - metabolism
Cross-Linking Reagents
Decision making
Disease Progression
Female
Humans
Keratoconus
Keratoconus - diagnosis
Keratoconus - drug therapy
Keratoconus - metabolism
Male
Netherlands
Online First
Ophthalmology
Original Investigation
Patients
Photochemotherapy - methods
Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use
Prospective Studies
Riboflavin - therapeutic use
Risk assessment
Sensitivity analysis
Sickness Impact Profile
Ultraviolet Rays
Visual Acuity
title Clinical Evaluation and Validation of the Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus Score
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T11%3A28%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20Evaluation%20and%20Validation%20of%20the%20Dutch%20Crosslinking%20for%20Keratoconus%20Score&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20ophthalmology%20(1960)&rft.au=Wisse,%20Robert%20P.%20L&rft.date=2019-06-01&rft.volume=137&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=610&rft.epage=616&rft.pages=610-616&rft.issn=2168-6165&rft.eissn=2168-6173&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.0415&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2244640562%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2244640562&rft_id=info:pmid/30920597&rft_ama_id=2728730&rfr_iscdi=true