ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Common ocular findings in patients with acne rosacea.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ocular surface changes in moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate ocular surface manifestations in patients with acne rosecea (AR) and to find out main features indicating a propensity toward an association with disease diagnosis.
methodsRight eyes of consecutive 76 AR patients and 113 age-gender matched healthy subjects were enrolled. Ophthalmologic examinations including tear break-up time (t-BUT) and Schirmer-2 tests to analyze tear film insufficiency, optical coherence tomography (OCT)-assisted infrared meibography to analyze meibomian gland drop-out, and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire were performed in all participants.
resultsNo statistically differences were found in visual acuity, intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, and axial length assessments between the study and control eyes. Study eyes had more foreign body sensation, itching, dryness, hyperemia, conjunctival telangiectasia, and meibomitis (p ≤ 0.005, for all). Significantly higher t-BUT and Schirmer-2 tests; lower-eyelid and total OCT meibography; and OSDI scores were found in AR patients (p < 0.05, for all). Among all, only conjunctival telangiectasia (p = 0.001; OR:0.070, 95% CI:0.015-0.330) was found to be major independent predictor for AR diagnosis.
conclusionDetailed slit-lamp examination to detect any conjunctival telangiectasia seems to be crucial in recalcitrant dry eye cases, not to miss underlying AR. Especially, lower-eyelid OCT meibography score may be sensitively used for disease staging.
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.