Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of phase 3 clinical trial outcomes: OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray and cyclosporine a 0.05% ophthalmic emulsion for the treatment of dry eye disease.

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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Comparing the efficacy and safety of safinamide with rasagiline in China Parkinson's disease patients with a matching adjusted indirect comparison.Scientific reports · 2025
   Trial
2. Comparative Efficacy of Cyclosporine, Tacrolimus, and Neurostimulatory Nasal Sprays for Moderate-to-Severe Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
   Review
3. Varenicline Solution Nasal Spray: A Review in Dry Eye Disease.Drugs · 2022
   Review

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 3 countries.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as