ArticleScientific reports2022
A randomized multicenter evaluation of the efficacy of 0.15% hyaluronic acid versus 0.05% cyclosporine A in dry eye syndrome.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational Clinical Investigation Evaluating an Ophthalmic Solution Containing Xanthan Gum and Low Concentration Desonide Phosphate in Dry Eye Disease Treatment.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Review
- APX‑115A, a pan‑NADPH oxidase inhibitor, reduces the degree and incidence rate of dry eye in the STZ‑induced diabetic rat model.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Topical Cyclosporin-A 0.1% Compared to Combined Topical Cyclosporin-A 0.1% with Topical Sodium Hyaluronate on Interleukin-6 Levels in the Tears of Patients with Dry Eye Disease.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hyaluronic acid (HA) and cyclosporine A (CsA) eyedrops are commonly prescribed in dry eye syndrome (DES). The effectiveness of each preparation in DES is well-known, yet the superiority of one over another has been studied little. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of 0.15% HA compared to combinations of 0.05% CsA plus 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and 0.15% HA plus 0.05% CsA in patients with moderate to severe DES. Total 438 patients with moderate to severe DES were recruited and randomized for one of the three treatments for 12 weeks. Effectiveness was assessed at baseline, 4- and 12-weeks. The primary endpoint was change in corneal staining score. The secondary endpoints were tear break-up time (TBUT), strip meniscometry (SM) score, ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score, and tolerability questionnaire. The change in corneal staining score for 0.15% HA from the baseline was non-inferior to that of 0.05% CsA. Corneal staining score, TBUT, SM score, and OSDI score improved in all groups without statistically significant intergroup differences. Better tolerability and lower prevalence of adverse drug reactions were seen in 0.15% HA. Our findings suggest that 0.15% HA may be equivalently effective and safer than 0.05% CsA in treating moderate to severe DES.
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.