ArticleChinese medical journal2016
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- In Vivo Confocal Microscopy for Automated Detection of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Study Based on Deep Convolutional Neural Networks.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Meibomian Gland Dysfunction Clinical Practice Guidelines.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Factors affecting the prevalence, severity, and characteristics of ocular surface pain.Expert review of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Combination therapy with 3% diquafosol tetrasodium ophthalmic solution and sodium hyaluronate: an effective therapy for patients with dry eye after femtosecond laser-assistedFrontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- In Vivo Confocal Microscopy in Different Types of Dry Eye and Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Improved Dry Eye Symptoms and Signs of Patients With Meibomian Gland Dysfunction by a Dietary Supplement.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Novel Approaches for Imaging-Based Diagnosis of Ocular Surface Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- A Review of Imaging Biomarkers of the Ocular Surface.Eye & contact lens · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDry eye patients suffer from all kinds of symptoms. Sometimes, the clinical signs evaluation does not disclose any obvious difference in routine examination; in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) is a powerful tool for ocular surface disease. This study aimed to clarify meibomian gland (MG) alterations in dry eye patients with different symptoms and to compare the findings using IVCM.
methodsA total of sixty patients were recruited, all subjected to Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Salisbury Eye Evaluation Questionnaire (SEEQ), and questionnaires for the assessment of dry eye symptoms before clinical sign examinations were given to the patients. Finally, IVCM was applied to observe MG's structure. Statistical analysis was performed using the t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test and Spearman correlation analysis. The differences were statistically significant when P< 0.05.
resultsIn the severe symptom group, OSDI and SEEQ scores were significantly higher (P< 0.05) compared with the mild symptoms group. All other clinical sign examinations had no statistical difference in the two groups (P> 0.05). However, all the IVCM-observed data showed that patients with severe symptoms had more significant fibrosis in MG (acinar unit area 691.87 ± 182.01 μm2 for the severe, 992.17 ± 170.84 μm2 for the mild; P< 0.05) and severer decrease in the size of MG acinar units than those observed in patients with mild symptoms (MG acinar unit density [MGAUD] 70.08 ± 18.78 glands/mm2, MG acinar unit longest diameter [MGALD] 51.50 ± 15.51 μm, MG acinar unit shortest diameter [MGASD] 20.30 ± 11.85 μm for the severe, MGAUD 89.53 ± 39.88 glands/mm2, MGALD 81.57 ± 21.14 μm, MGASD 42.37 ± 14.55 μm for the mild;P< 0.05). Dry eye symptoms were negatively correlated with MG confocal microscopic parameters and positively correlated with conjunctival inflammatory cells and Langerhans cells (P< 0.05).
conclusionsIVCM application provides a strong support to differentiate dry eye patients with different symptoms: meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) plays a pivotal role in dry eye aggravation, and using IVCM to observe MG fibrosis, changes in size and density of MG as well as status of inflammation cells can help not only correctly diagnose the type and severity of dry eye, but also possibly prognosticate in routine eye examination in the occurrence of MGD.
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.