Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23836952›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2013

Netilmicin/dexamethasone fixed combination in the treatment of conjunctival inflammation.

Francesco Faraldi, Vincenzo Papa, Daria Rasà, Debora Santoro, Simona Russo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 83% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francesco FaraldiStruttura Complessa Oculistica III, Presidio Ospedaliero Oftalmico, Torino, Italy.
Vincenzo Papa
Daria Rasà
Debora Santoro
Simona Russo
Presidio Ospedaliero · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of 0.1% dexamethasone/0.3% netilmicin (Netildex), with that of 0.1% dexamethasone/0.3% tobramycin (Tobradex) in the treatment of external ocular inflammation requiring antibiotic therapy.

methodsIn this randomized, double-blind study, 139 subjects with conjunctival inflammation associated with signs of ocular infection were treated with Netildex (n = 71) or Tobradex (n = 68) four times daily for 6 days. The primary efficacy analysis was based on the percentage of patients with at least a 50% decrease in conjunctival hyperemia at the endpoint visit (Day 6 [± 1]) with respect to baseline (responder rate). An equivalence margin of 20% was set for this study. A follow-up visit was performed at Day 14 (± 1). Other efficacy parameters were: conjunctival edema, conjunctival discharge, lid hyperemia, lid edema, presence of ocular infection, and symptoms of ocular discomfort. Safety evaluations included intraocular pressure, visual acuity, and adverse events.

resultsAt Day 6, a decrease of conjunctival hyperemia was observed in 87.3% and 90.9% of the patients treated with Netildex and Tobradex, respectively. The 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups (-15.3 ÷ 8.0) satisfied the equivalence hypothesis. Subjects treated with Netildex had a better control of lid hyperemia (P = 0.016), tearing (P = 0.001), burning (P = 0.007), and stinging (P = 0.004). No adverse reactions were observed during the study except one case of keratitis in the Tobradex group.

conclusionNetildex was as effective and safe as Tobradex in reducing signs and symptoms in patients with conjunctival inflammation when ocular infection was suspected.

Indexed as

conjunctivitisdexamethasonenetilmicinred eye

Identifiers

PMID23836952
PMCPMC3699304
OpenAlexW2058697341

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.