Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27217719›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2016

A nonrandomized, open-label study to evaluate the effect of nasal stimulation on tear production in subjects with dry eye disease.

Neil J Friedman, Karla Butron, Nora Robledo, James Loudin, Stephanie N Baba, Arturo Chayet

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06525961 (A Single-center, Open-label, Single-arm Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Safety of Extra Nasal Neurostimulator in Patients With Dry Eye Disease Dissatisfied With Artificial Tears), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT06525961 phase4unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

A Single-center, Open-label, Single-arm Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Safety of Extra Nasal Neurostimulator in Patients With Dry Eye Disease Dissatisfied With Artificial Tears

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2024 to 2026Enrolled30ConditionsDry Eye Disease, Dry Eye Syndromes, Dry Eye, Meibomian Gland DysfunctionArmsiTEAR100 Neurostimulator
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Novel Extranasal Tear Stimulation: Pivotal Study Results.Translational vision science & technology · 2020
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Stimulating Tear Production: Spotlight on Neurostimulation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Advances in dry eye disease treatment.Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2019
    Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Neil J FriedmanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Mid-Peninsula Ophthalmology Medical Group, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Karla ButronCodet Vision Institute, Tijuana, Mexico.
Nora RobledoCodet Vision Institute, Tijuana, Mexico.
James LoudinOculeve, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Stephanie N BabaOculeve, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Arturo ChayetCodet Vision Institute, Tijuana, Mexico.
CODET Vision Institute · MXNuVasive (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDry eye disease (DED), a chronic disorder affecting the tear film and lacrimal functional unit, is a widely prevalent condition associated with significant burden and unmet treatment needs. Since specific neural circuits play an important role in maintaining ocular surface health, microelectrical stimulation of these pathways could present a promising new approach to treating DED. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nasal electrical stimulation in patients with DED.

methodsThis prospective, open-label, single-arm, nonrandomized pilot study included 40 patients with mild to severe DED. After undergoing two screening visits, enrolled subjects were provided with a nasal stimulation device and instructed to use it at home four times daily (or more often as needed). Follow-up assessments were conducted up to day 180. The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference between unstimulated and stimulated tear production quantified by Schirmer scores. Additional efficacy endpoints included change from baseline in corneal and conjunctival staining, symptoms evaluated on a Visual Analog Scale, and Ocular Surface Disease Index scores. Safety parameters included adverse event (AE) rates, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, indirect ophthalmoscopy, and endoscopic nasal examinations.

resultsMean stimulated Schirmer scores were significantly higher than the unstimulated scores at all visits, and corneal and conjunctival staining and symptom scores from baseline to day 180 were significantly reduced. No serious device-related AEs and nine nonserious AEs (three device-related) were reported. Intraocular pressure remained stable and most subjects showed little or no change in visual acuity at days 30 and 180. No significant findings from other clinical examinations were noted.

conclusionNeurostimulation of the nasolacrimal pathway is a safe and effective means of increasing tear production and reducing symptoms of dry eye in patients with DED.

Indexed as

keratoconjunctivitis siccanasolacrimal reflexneuromodulationneurostimulationocular stainingtear production

Identifiers

PMID27217719
PMCPMC4862385
OpenAlexW2346421161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.