ArticleDie Ophthalmologie2022
[Thermal pulsation system (LipiFlow®) for treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) from the perspective of an ophthalmologist in private practice].
Article in Die Ophthalmologie, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- LipiFlow for the treatment of dry eye disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Vectored Thermal Pulsation as a Treatment for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Review Spanning 15 Years.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Review
- TIPE2 Inhibits MGD Inflammation by Regulating Macrophage Polarization.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThermal pulsation (LipiFlow®, Johnson&Johnson, Santa Ana, CA, USA) has been advocated for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) treatment and was found to be useful in many studies. The aim of this study was to show the efficacy of the method and to compare it to a daily eyelid margin massage in a non-university institution.
methodsA non-blinded, single-center interventional study comparing thermal pulsation with eyelid margin massage for the treatment of MDD. In this study 30 patients were recruited during daily office hours. Symptoms (OSDI) and ocular surface (NIK-BUT, tear ferning test, tear meniscus height, LIPCO folds, meibography, meibomian gland evaluator) were assessed before treatment. A total of 15 patients (9 women) underwent thermal pulsation (single session), while 15 patients (8 women) performed eyelid margin massage (once daily) as instructed for 3 months.
resultsBefore the two treatment methods, there were no differences in the above parameters, gender and age were also normally distributed. After treatment, both subjective and objective criteria improved in the two groups but significantly more in the thermal pulsation arm. In particular, the limited compliance of 30% in the eyelid margin massage arm should be noted. Safety parameters, such as visual acuity and intraocular pressure (IOP) remained normal in all patients.
conclusionA single session of thermal pulsation showed significantly better results in the efficacy and safety profile after 3 months compared to eyelid margin massage once daily; however, the high costs for the patients due to the single use mode of the activators must be taken in account.
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.