SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2015
A systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of acyclovir 3% ophthalmic ointment to idoxuridine in curing herpetic keratitis by Day 7 of treatment.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Viral Infection and Antiviral Treatments in Ocular Pathologies.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews.JAMA ophthalmology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis objective of the review and analysis is to demonstrate that acyclovir (ACV) 3% ophthalmic ointment is superior to idoxuridine (IDU) in treating herpetic keratitis (HK) presenting as dendritic and geographic ulcer sub-types.
methodsDATA SOURCES: Publications in human subjects were identified by searching the Ovid MEDLINE database through April 2011, combining medical subject headings (MESH) "Keratitis, Herpetic/" AND "Acyclovir/" limiting by the key words "topical" OR "ointment" and also restricted to MESH "Administration, Topical/" OR "Ointments/". The results were cross checked with the references used in the Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1:1-134, 2009 and GlaxoSmithKline clinical documents related to acyclovir. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, double-masked studies in subjects diagnosed with HK with head to head comparator arms of ACV ophthalmic ointment and topical IDU that had actual or calculable healing rates at Day seven. DATA EXTRACTION: Data independently extracted from identified articles by two authors of this manuscript. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data from seven randomized, controlled trials (RCT) evaluating 432 subjects that met inclusion criteria (214 were treated with ACV and 218 were treated with IDU) and had Day seven healing rates calculable. All sub-classified lesions were identified as either dendritic ulcers (n = 185) or geographic ulcers (n = 35). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method in Biometrics 10:417-51, 1954 and JNCI 22:719-48, 1959, controlling for study, was performed as the primary analysis using SAS v9. Homogeneity was assessed using Breslow-Day-Tarone (BDT) test in IARC 1:1-32, 1980 and Biometrika 72:91-5, 1985. The analysis was performed with outliers removed to assess their impact.
resultsACV showed statistically significant greater odds of healing HK at Day seven in all subjects (Odds Ratio 3.95, 95% CI2.60, 6.00, p < 0.0001), in dendritic ulcers (Odds Ratio 4.22, 95% CI: 2.14, 8.32; p < 0.0001) and geographic ulcers (Odds Ratio 5.31, 95% CI: 1.09, 25.93; p = 0.0244).
conclusionACV 3% ophthalmic ointment is a valuable intervention for dendritic and geographic corneal ulcers. ACV and IDU were generally well tolerated in the studies reviewed.
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.