ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Intense Pulsed Light for Refractive Multiple Recurrent Chalazia.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intense pulsed light as a multi-target intervention paradigm for refractory ocular surface diseases: a review.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2026Review
- Precision treatment of chalazion based on AI-driven risk stratification: a prospective study of triamcinolone acetonide combined with intense pulsed light therapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Advances in the Medical Management of Pediatric Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis.Advances in therapy · 2026Review
- Modern Technologies inSovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2025Review
- Review
- Therapeutic effect of intense pulsed light on different types of chalazion in children.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Efficacy of combined doxycycline and intense pulsed light therapy for the management of intractable recurrent chalazion.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Novel treatment of chalazion using light-guided-tip intense pulsed light.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Therapeutic efficacy of optimal pulse technology in the treatment ofFrontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Current practices and considerations in intense pulsed light therapy for meibomian gland dysfunction.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) combined with meibomian gland expression (MGX) for the treatment of refractory multiple and recurrent chalazia without surgery or curettage. This was a retrospective controlled study. Patients with multiple and recurrent chalazia, who had performed the conventional treatment at least 2 months without any surgery or curettage, were enrolled in this study. Twenty-nine consecutive multiple recurrent chalazia (12 patients) were assigned to receive either the combination of IPL and MGX or MGX alone as a control. Each eye underwent one to four treatment sessions with 2-week intervals. Parameters were evaluated before and 1 month after the final treatment session. Clinical assessments included symptom, size of each chalazion, lid margin abnormalities, corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining, meibum grade, the number of Demodex mites, the Schirmer value and meiboscore. All parameters except meiboscore and the Schirmer value were significantly improved with IPL-MGX therapy, whereas only meibum grade was significantly improved with MGX alone. There were no adverse events which occurred in either group. IPL-MGX was safe and effective for multiple and recurrent chalazia without surgery or curettage by reducing the size of chalazion and improving lid margin abnormalities and meibum grade.
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.