ArticleCornea2024
Comparison of Subjective Responses to Cyclosporine 0.05% Versus Lifitegrast 5.0% in Individuals With Dry Eye Disease.
Article in Cornea, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacological, Natural and Emerging Therapies for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Review.Drugs · 2026Review
- Navigating the Dry Eye Therapeutic Puzzle: A Mechanism-Based Overview of Current Treatments.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- To assess the effectiveness of Systane COMPLETE in improving meibomian gland score and in reducing symptoms of ocular dryness.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Review
- The Problem With Dry Eye Trials.JAMA ophthalmology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to examine subjective responses to cyclosporine A (CsA) 0.05% versus lifitegrast 5% in individuals with dry eye disease.
methodsThis study was a retrospective review of individuals with clinically diagnosed dry eye disease treated with both CsA 0.05% and lifitegrast 5% over the course of their disease. Information collected included demographics, comorbidities, and dry eye disease signs. Treatment preferences were noted as mild or strong for a particular medication, no preference, or unable to tolerate either medication. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported medication preference. The secondary outcome measure was an examination of individual and eye factors that related to medication preference.
resultsSixty-four individuals (mean age 66.73 ± 13.17 years; 82.8% male, 71.9% White, 29.7% Hispanic) used both CsA and lifitegrast over the course of their disease. Of those, 33 preferred CsA (12.5% mildly and 39.1% strongly), 14 preferred lifitegrast (3.1% mildly and 18.8% strongly), 12 had no preference (18.8%), and 5 could not tolerate either medication (7.8%) due to side effects. No demographic characteristics, comorbidities, or ocular surface findings correlated with medication preference.
conclusionsIn individuals who used both CsA 0.05% and lifitegrast 5% over the course of their disease, a higher frequency of individuals preferred CsA. No clinical factors correlated with medication preference.
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.