Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19284328›Full record

ArticleJournal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics2009

Comparative toxicity of preservatives on immortalized corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells.

Seth P Epstein, Michael Ahdoot, Edward Marcus, Penny A Asbell

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 193 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. [Preservative-free glaucoma treatment : Selection of the correct treatment in 1 min].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2016
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Unhappy 20/20: A New Challenge for Cataract Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. Yonago acta medica · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Therapeutic Potential of Honey and Propolis on Ocular Disease.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  20. Review

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Seth P EpsteinDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA. seth.epstein@mssm.edu
Michael Ahdoot
Edward Marcus
Penny A Asbell
Mount Sinai Medical Center · US

Funding

INTERDISCIPLINARY VISION RESEARCH CENTER (CORE)P30EY001867 · NEI · MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE OF NYU · PI CANDIA, OSCAR A · 1985 to 2011
$4.7M
NEI NIH HHS EY01867
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNearly all eye drops contain preservatives to decrease contamination. Nonpreservatives such as disodium-ethylene diamine tetra-acetate (EDTA) and phosphate-buffered saline are also regularly added as buffering agents. These components can add to the toxicity of eye drops and cause ocular surface disease. To evaluate the potential toxicity of these common components and their comparative effects on the ocular surface, a tissue culture model utilizing immortalized corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells was utilized.

methodsImmortalized human conjunctival and corneal epithelial cells were grown. At confluency, medium was replaced with 100 microL of varying concentrations of preservatives: benzalkonium chloride (BAK), methyl paraben (MP), sodium perborate (SP), chlorobutanol (Cbl), and stabilized thimerosal (Thi); varying concentrations of buffer: EDTA; media (viable control); and formalin (dead control). After 1 h, solutions were replaced with 150 microL of MTT (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyl tetrazonium bromide). After 4 h, solutions decanted, 100 microL of acid isopropanol added, and the optical density determined at 572 nm to evaluate cell viability.

resultsConjunctival and corneal cell toxicity was seen with all preservatives. Depending upon concentration, BAK exhibited from 56% to 89% toxicity. In comparison, Cbl exhibited from 50% to 86%, MP from 30% to 76%, SP from 23% to 59%, and Thi from 70% to 95%. EDTA with minimal toxicity (from 6% to 59%) was indistinguishable from SP.

conclusionsGenerally, the order of decreasing toxicity at the most commonly used concentrations: Thi (0.0025%) > BAK (0.025%) > Cbl (0.25%) > MP (0.01%) > SP (0.0025%) approximately EDTA (0.01%). Even at low concentration, these agents will cause some degree of ocular tissue damage.

Indexed as

Benzalkonium CompoundsBoratesCell LineCell SurvivalChlorobutanolConjunctivaDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalEpithelial CellsEpithelium, CornealHumansOphthalmic SolutionsParabensPreservatives, PharmaceuticalThimerosalBenzalkonium CompoundsBoratesChlorobutanolmethylparabenOphthalmic SolutionsParabensPreservatives, Pharmaceuticalsodium perborateThimerosal

Identifiers

PMID19284328
PMCPMC2958436
OpenAlexW1963876569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.