Trial reportJournal of optometry
An Eyelid Warming Device for the Management of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.
Trial report in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of a 0.05% cyclosporine a topical nanoemulsion in dry eyes with obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2022Trial
- TheraPearl Eye Mask and Blephasteam for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized, comparative clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- A Randomised Pilot Trial to Demonstrate the Feasibility of a Prototype Electronic Heating Device in Patients with Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Evidence-Based Strategies for Warm Compress Therapy in Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Meibomian Gland Dysfunction Clinical Practice Guidelines.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Dry Eye Disease Associated with Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Focus on Tear Film Characteristics and the Therapeutic Landscape.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Review
- Eyelid Warming Devices: Safety, Efficacy, and Place in Therapy.Clinical optometry · 2022Review
- Meibomian glands visibility assessment through a new quantitative method.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021Article
- Therapeutic Instruments Targeting Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2020Review
- Effects of chalazion and its treatments on the meibomian glands: a nonrandomized, prospective observation clinical study.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Observational
- A Review of Imaging Biomarkers of the Ocular Surface.Eye & contact lens · 2020Review
- Evaluation of the Impact of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction Using a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and TherapeuticsObservational
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the effectiveness of the MGDRx EyeBag in managing meibomian gland dysfunction.
methodsThis was a prospective, randomized, controlled, observer-masked, bilateral eye study that enrolled 29 participants. Participants were randomized into either the EyeBag group or the control group. The EyeBag group used the EyeBag 10minutes 2x/day, and the control group remained on their own dry eye treatment regimen (if applicable). All participants were observed at baseline, 2 weeks (2wk) and 4 weeks (4wk). At 4wk, participants in the EyeBag group were asked to stop using the EyeBag. All participants were seen again at 8 weeks (8wk). Primary outcomes were the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Current Symptoms Questionnaire (CSQ), meibomian gland score (MG score), and non-invasive tear breakup time (NIBUT).
resultsTwenty-five participants completed the study (mean age 38±15 years, 7 male). There was a significant change in OSDI over time for the EyeBag group (mean[lower 95% CI, upper 95% CI], baseline: 39.1[31.1,47.0], 2wk: 26.8[19.7,33.9], 4wk: 26.6[16.5,36.7], 8wk: 27.7[18.4,37.0]; p=0.01), but not in the control group (p=0.22), but no significant difference between groups at all time points (all p>0.27). Symptoms immediately improved after conducting the EyeBag based on at-home CSQ scores (Δ=-5.0 points, p<0.01), but not in the control group. For both groups, there was no significant change (p-value EyeBag,p-value control) in MG score (0.21,0.17) and NIBUT (0.49,0.06) over time.
conclusionsThe EyeBag may relieve symptoms of dry eye, but the effect on meibomian gland function and tear stability when used for only 4 weeks was undetectable.
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.