Observational studyScientific reports2021
Clinical characteristics of Demodex-associated recurrent hordeola: an observational, comparative study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term efficacy of intense pulsed light in the treatment of hordeolum: A prospective cohort study.Medicine · 2026Trial
- Demodex and the eye - A review.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Varied presentations of ocular demodicosis in a rural population.BMJ case reports · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our study evaluated the association between Demodex infestation and recurrent hordeola and examined the clinical features associated with these eyelid lesions. This was an observational, comparative study. We reviewed 250 patients and divided them into the recurrent hordeolum (n = 153) and control (n = 97) groups. Demodex infestation was detected by epilating eyelashes around the lesion/s and viewing them under a light microscope. Patient medical records and photographs were retrospectively analyzed to identify the clinical characteristics of Demodex-associated recurrent hordeola. Demodex was detected in 91 (59.5%) and 17 (17.5%) patients in the recurrent hordeolum and control groups (p < 0.001), respectively. In the recurrent hordeolum group, Demodex mites were found in 74 (68.5%) and 17 (37.8%) of the adult and pediatric patients (p < 0.001), respectively. Among patients with recurrent hordeola, patients in their 20s were most likely to have concomitant Demodex infestation. Patients with Demodex infestations were also more likely to develop recurrent lesions within a shorter period of time from the primary incision and curettage. The most common presentation of Demodex-associated recurrent lesions was external hordeola (67%) (p = 0.002). Demodex infestation may cause recurrent hordeola in adults and children. These mites may play a greater role in the development of lesions in adult patients. The strongest association between Demodex infestation and recurrent lesions was seen in patients in their 20s. Our results suggest that if the hordeola recur within a short period of time with the clinical characteristics of external location of eyelid, multiple numbers of lesions, or anterior blepharitis, eyelash epilation should be performed to identify the presence of Demodex mites.
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.