ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research
Topical Olopatadine Hydrochloride versus Ketotifen Fumarate for Allergic Conjunctivitis.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ophthalmic Formulations for the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis and Their Effect on the Ocular Surface: A Review of Safety and Tolerability Assessments in Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of olopatadine with ketotifen for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis study.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2023Article
- Topical ketotifen treatment for allergic conjunctivitis: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Review
- Discovery to Launch of Anti-allergy (Emadine; Patanol/Pataday/Pazeo) and Anti-glaucoma (Travatan; Simbrinza) Ocular Drugs, and Generation of Novel Pharmacological Tools Such as AL-8810.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2020Article
- Emerging Therapeutics for Ocular Surface Disease.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAllergic conjunctivitis (AC) is associated with itching, redness, tearing, pain, and burning sensation in the eyes. The inflammatory process is caused by the mechanism of immediate hypersensitivity due to direct contact with the allergen. This process triggers mast cells in the conjunctiva to activate and release mediators. The purpose of this study was to compare topical olopatadine and ketotifen in terms of effectiveness and safety for the management of AC.
methodsPatients clinically diagnosed with AC were randomized into two groups of 60 patients each and received either topical olopatadine HCl 0.1% or ketotifen fumarate 0.025%. They were followed up on the 4
resultsThere were a total of 120 patients (67 men and 53 women) with a mean age of 36.35 ± 11 years. Compared to baseline, scores of itching, tearing, redness, eyelid swelling, chemosis and papillae addition of all the individual scores mentioned above and QOL scores reduced significantly (
conclusionCompared to ketotifen, olopatadine provided quicker relief of symptoms, and improved symptoms of AC and QOL, with fewer side effects.
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.