ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2008
[Toxicity of a new moistening agent and preservative in vitro].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Current and experimental treatment approaches for neurotrophic keratopathy].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019Review
- [Chemical and thermal eye burns. Conservatíve and surgical options of a stage-dependent therapy].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2011Article
- [Glaucoma and corneal transplantation].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2010Article
- [Albumin eye drops for treatment of ocular surface diseases].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of preservatives such as benzalkonium chloride (BAC) usually increases the toxicity of pharmaceutical tear substitutes. HP-guar has been recently introduced as a new artificial tear substitute and includes the preservative Polyquad (0.001%), which is considered to be non-toxic. We therefore examined the effect of preserved (cetrimide 0.01%) and unpreserved HPMC (hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose) and HP-guar in dose and time-response experiments in a human corneal and conjunctival epithelial cell culture model.
methodsImmortalized human conjunctival and corneal epithelial cells were cultured in 96-well plates at 37 degrees C with 5% CO(2) and exposed to the test solutions. The ATP content was quantified by means of a luminescence-based ATP assay, intracellular esterase activity by double fluorescent viability staining (calcein AM/ethidium homodimer D-1) and cell migration by a colony dispersion assay. All experiments were performed in triplicate and repeated at least once. The significance of differences was determined with an unpaired two-sided t-test.
resultsHPMC with preservative severely reduced the ATP content at all concentrations tested. Unpreserved HPMC, however, showed an inhibition of ATP production only at 100% and good esterase activity. HP-guar with and without preservative were found to reduce ATP activity more than unpreserved HPMC, but the unpreserved solution was found to reduce cellular ATP levels significantly more than the preserved solution.
conclusionsThe new preservative Polyquad induced significantly less cytotoxicity than cetrimide. However, even unpreserved HP-guar can induce cytotoxicity in vitro, while unpreserved HPMC remains a good alternative tear substitute with low cytotoxicity.
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.