ArticleEuropean journal of ophthalmology2022
Analysis of tear film in cystinosis patients treated with topical viscous cysteamine hydrochloride (Cystadrops
Article in European journal of 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate
methodsTen eyes of five patients with nephropathic cystinosis aged from 10 to 35 years were included in this study. The patients were under treatment with viscous cysteamine hydrochloride formulation containing 3.8 mg/mL cysteamine (vCH 0.55%, equivalent to 0.55% CH; Cystadrops
resultsMean tear osmolarity was 294.8 mOsms/L (±10.4), with a mean absolute difference of 1.85 mOsms/L (±2.13) between the eyes. There was no statistically significant difference between the osmolarity readings of cystinosis and the control group (294.8 ± 10.4 vs 299.4 ± 6.2mOsm/L, respectively; p = 0.39). The mean TBUT was 10.2 ± 0.83 s in the study group versus 10 ± 0.7 s in controls (p = 0.62). The mean Schirmer test score was 9.2 ± 0.83 mm in the patients versus 10.2 ± 0.83 mm in the controls (p = 0.14).
conclusionsThe TearLab
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.