ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Conjunctival impression cytology and tear film parameters in patients with multiple sclerosis.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tear Biomarkers in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Diseases, and Multiple Sclerosis: Implications for Diagnosis (Systematic Review).International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Ocular Surface Changes Associated with Neurological Diseases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Oculomics analysis in multiple sclerosis: Current ophthalmic clinical and imaging biomarkers.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate conjunctival impression cytology (CIC) findings and tear film parameters in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with controls.
methodsThirty-three patients with MS (MS group) and 33 age- and sex-matched healthy subjects (control group) were included in this cross-sectional comparative study. CIC grades, tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer 1 test results, and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores were compared between the two groups, and correlations between CIC grade, TBUT, Schirmer 1 test result, OSDI score, Expanded Disability Status Scale score, and disease duration were analyzed.
resultsMean CIC grade was higher in the MS group than in the control group (1.48 ± 0.71 and 0.39 ± 0.56, respectively; p < 0.001). In the MS group, CIC of the 14 participants (42.4%) was grade 2-3. In the control group, CIC of the only one participant (3.3%) was grade 2, and none of them was grade 3. TBUT (8.12 ± 3.16, 13.06 ± 4.23 s in MS and control groups, respectively; p < 0.001) and Schirmer 1 test results (8.45 ± 5.75, 17.36 ± 10.89 mm in MS and control groups, respectively; p < 0.001) were lower, and OSDI score (36.36 ± 19.19, 13.70 ± 15.36 in MS and control groups, respectively; p < 0.001) was higher in the MS group compared to the control group.
conclusionIn patients with MS, objective findings of dry eye, subjective symptoms related to dry eye, and CIC abnormalities, including high grades of conjunctival squamous metaplasia and goblet cell loss, are more common. Patients with MS should be monitored for ocular surface alterations and dry eye disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34599424What 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.