Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2019
Comparison of 0.05% cyclosporine and 3% diquafosol solution for dry eye patients: a randomized, blinded, multicenter clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diquafosol ophthalmic solution on ocular surface parameters in visual display terminal-associated dry eye disease.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Ocular surface disease following LASIK and cataract surgery: a review of their interrelated complications.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Dry Eye in Diabetes: The Indian Diabetic and Endocrine Eye Diseases (INDEED) Review.TouchREVIEWS in endocrinology · 2024Review
- Post-LASIK dry eye disease: A comprehensive review of management and current treatment options.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Ocular Surface Ion Transport and Dry Eye Disease.Current ophthalmology reports · 2022Article
- Real-World Effectiveness, Tolerability and Safety of Cyclosporine A 0.1% Cationic Emulsion in Severe Keratitis and Dry Eye Treatment.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Article
- Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Effects of Eye Drops Containing Hyaluronic Acid-Nimesulide Conjugates in a Benzalkonium Chloride-Induced Experimental Dry Eye Rabbit Model.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Retraction Note: Comparison of 0.05% cyclosporine and 3% diquafosol solution for dry eye patients: a randomized, blinded, multicenter clinical trial.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2020-06-23Concerns/Issues about Data · Duplication of/in Article · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study is aim to compare the clinical effectiveness between the two most prominent dry eye disease (DED)-specific eye drops, 0.05% cyclosporine (CN) and 3% diquafosol (DQ).
methodsThis is a multi-centered, randomized, masked, prospective clinical study. A total of 153 DED patients were randomly allocated to use CN twice per day or DQ six times daily. Cornea and conjunctival staining scores (NEI scale), tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer test scores, and ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score were measured at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks after treatment.
resultsAt 12 weeks after treatment, NEI scaled scores were significantly reduced from the baseline by - 6.60 for CN and - 6.63 for DQ group (all P < 0.0001, P = 0.9739 between groups). TBUT and Schirmer values for CN were significantly improved from the baseline at 4 and 12 weeks (P = 0.0034, P < 0.0001 for TBUT, P = 0.0418, P = 0.0031 for Schirmer test). However, for DQ, TBUT showed significant improvement at 12 weeks only (P = 0.0281). Mean OSDI score differences from the baseline to 12 weeks were improved by - 13.03 ± 19.63 for CN and - 16.11 ± 20.87 for DQ, respectively (all P < 0.0001, P = 0.854 between groups). Regarding drug compliance, the mean instillation frequency of CN was less than that of DQ (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant intergroup differences in safety evaluation.
conclusionsThe level of improvement regarding NEI, TBUT, and OSDI scores were not significantly different between the two treatment groups. However, with regards to the early improvement of TBUT and patient compliance, patients using CN improved faster and with greater adherence to drug usage than did those treated with DQ.
trial registrationKCT0002180 , retrospectively registered on 23 December 2016.
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.