ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
Comparative analysis of 0.1% cyclosporin A cationic emulsion and 0.05% cyclosporin A emulsion in murine dry eye cases with different severities.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cyclosporine a in the treatment of dry eye disease: a narrative review.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Review
- The Effect of Anti-Inflammatory Topical Ophthalmic Treatments on In Vitro Corneal Epithelial Cells.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dry eye (DE), especially severe DE (SDE), can cause ocular surface defects and reduce the patient's quality of life. Several clinical studies have shown that 0.1% cyclosporin A cationic emulsion (CsA CE) could decrease corneal damage. However, no experimental study has reported the effect of 0.1% CsA CE on SDE. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.1% CsA CE with that of 0.05% CsA emulsion for ocular surface damage and inflammation in the cases of murine DE with different severities. Following exposure to desiccating stress and subcutaneous injection of scopolamine for 5 days, C57BL/6 female mice were divided into SDE and non-SDE (NSDE) groups based on corneal fluorescein staining scores (CFSs). Mice from both groups were topically treated with 0.05% CsA emulsion or 0.1% CsA CE for 10 days. The results demonstrated that 0.1% CsA CE-treated mice in the SDE and NSDE groups exhibited significant improvements in all the clinical and experimental parameters. Furthermore, the CFS of 0.1% CsA CE-treated mice in the SDE group was lower compared with that of the 0.05% CsA-treated mice. In addition, in the SDE group, 0.1% CsA CE-treated mice had significantly lower levels of nuclear factor-κB activation, inflammatory infiltrations and apoptosis on the ocular surface, and they also exhibited higher conjunctival goblet cell density compared with the 0.05% CsA-treated mice. In summary, these findings indicated that 0.1% CsA CE was more effective than topical 0.05% CsA emulsion at improving corneal epithelial injury and decreasing the levels of inflammatory cytokines and T cells in mice with SDE.
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.