ArticleSystematic reviews2022
Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of Diquafosol Compared to Artificial Tears for the Treatment of Dry Eye: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Efficacy and safety of pilocarpine as a secretagogue versus artificial tears in the management of dry eye disease.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026Article
- MEIBO (perfluorohexyloctane): a novel approach to treating dry eye disease.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDry eye disease (DED) is a condition that compromises the ocular surface and affects millions of people around the world. In recent years, a scheme has been proposed for the treatment of DED, with the use of artificial tear being the mainstay of treatment. In this scheme, the use of secretagogues is suggested as part of the treatment for patients with moderate to severe affectation. With this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of secretagogues for DED.
methodsElectronic databases will be searched; we will include randomized controlled trials that compare secretagogues and artificial tears. Study inclusion will not be restricted on the basis of language or publication status. We will use Google Translate to assess studies written in languages other than English and Spanish. Identification, evaluation, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias will be conducted by two authors of the review, a third review author will resolve any disagreement. The outcomes will be the ocular surface disease index score, tear film break-up time, Schirmer test score, VRQoL Score, and tear film osmolarity. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for assessing the risk of bias of the included studies. Based on the heterogeneity of the included studies, we will combine the findings in a meta-analysis using a fixed effect model if heterogeneity ≤ 50% or a random effect model if heterogeneity > 50%. If we deem meta-analysis as inappropriate, we will document the reasons and report findings from the individual studies narratively. DISCUSSION: Based on the evidence obtained, we will evaluate the effect of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol and compare it to artificial tears on multiple outcome measures. This systematic review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of the secretagogues pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol to help clinicians in the decision-making process.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020218407 .
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.