Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology1999
Efficacy of nedocromil 2% versus fluorometholone 0.1%: a randomised, double masked trial comparing the effects on severe vernal keratoconjunctivitis.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials on topical treatments for vernal keratoconjunctivitis.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2007Pooled it
- Clinical and biological efficacy of preservative-free NAAGA eye-drops versus levocabastine eye-drops in vernal keratoconjunctivitis patients.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2007Trial
- Ocular redness - II: Progress in development of therapeutics for the management of conjunctival hyperemia.The ocular surface · 2021Review
- Dermatologic tacrolimus ointment on the eyelids for steroid-refractory vernal keratoconjunctivitis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2019Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare the efficacy of topical nedocromil 2% with fluorometholone 0.1% in vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC).
methodsIn a double masked random design, 24 patients with severe vernal keratoconjunctivitis were placed at random on nedocromil 2% eye drops in one eye and fluorometholone 0.1% in the fellow eye. At the end of the 2 week treatment period, the patient crossed over the eye drops (if asymptomatic in one eye), or continued with nedocromil sodium in both eyes (if asymptomatic in both eyes). All patients were examined weekly and ocular surface temperature recorded for a period of 6 weeks.
resultsImprovement in the watering, discharge, conjunctival hyperaemia, papillary hypertrophy, and Trantas' dots was noted in both groups, but overall fluorometholone was significantly more effective than nedocromil. Eyes treated with fluorometholone showed a significant decrease in ocular surface temperature compared with nedocromil treated eyes (p = 0.03).
conclusionsBoth nedocromil and fluorometholone were effective in ameliorating the signs and symptoms of vernal keratoconjunctivitis. No adverse effects were noted in the nedocromil group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.