ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2022
Comparison of Consecutive Therapeutic Effects of Nanoemulsion and Emulsion Cyclosporin in Dry Eye Patients after Short-Term Treatment with Topical Fluorometholone.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence on the Use of Topical Ciclosporin for Ocular Surface Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Pharmacological, Natural and Emerging Therapies for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Review.Drugs · 2026Review
- Article
- Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of 0.1% Cyclosporine A Cationic Emulsion in Advanced Dry Eye Disease: A 24-Month Retrospective Study.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Nanomedicines for Dry Eye Syndrome: Targeting Oxidative Stress with Modern Nanomaterial Strategies.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluation of curcumin-based ophthalmic nano-emulsion on atropine-induced dry eye in mice.Heliyon · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the consecutive therapeutic effects of 0.05% emulsion and nanoemulsion cyclosporine (CsA) in dry eye patients after short-term treatment with unpreserved 0.1% fluorometholone (FML).
methodsA prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study of dry eye patients was conducted in a single center. Patients were assigned to the nanoemulsion CsA (group 1) and emulsion CsA (group 2) groups. To relieve discomfort, unpreserved 0.1% FML was used in both groups for 4 weeks and then changed to 0.05% CsA for the next 8 weeks. Symptom assessment in dry eye (SANDE) score, tear secretion, tear film breakup time (TBUT), corneal staining score (CSS), meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) grade, and meibomian gland (MG) expression were evaluated at baseline and at 4 and 12 weeks after treatment.
resultsTwenty-four patients completed the treatment (9 and 15 patients in groups 1 and 2); in both the groups, SANDE score, TBUT, MGD grade, and MG expression were significantly improved after treatment with unpreserved 0.1% FML (each
conclusionConsecutive therapeutic effects of nanoemulsion or emulsion CsA after short-term treatment with unpreserved FML were excellent in patients with dry eyes. Topical nanoemulsion CsA showed better improvement in TBUT and OSS than CsA. This trial is registered with KCT0006070.
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.