SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2023
Efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate versus fluorometholone in the treatment of patients after corneal refractive surgery: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo perform a systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate (LE) 0.5% versus fluorometholone (FML) 0.1% for treating patients after corneal refractive surgery with the aim of providing an evidence-based rationale for clinical drug selection.
methodsElectronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, WanFang, and CNKI) were searched (from inception to December 2021) for comparative clinical studies that evaluated LE versus FML treatment for post-corneal refractive surgery patients. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.
resultsNine studies with a total sample size of 2677 eyes were included in this analysis. FML 0.1% and LE 0.5% produced a similar incidence of corneal haze within 6 months after surgery (P = 0.13 at 1 month, P = 0.66 at 3 months, and P = 0.12 at 6 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of the mean logMAR postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (WMD: - 0.00; 95% CI: - 0.01 to 0.00; P = 0.29) and spherical equivalent (WMD: 0.01; 95% CI: - 0.01 to 0.03; P = 0.35). LE 0.5% appears to have a higher tendency to reduce the incidence of ocular hypertension compared FML 0.1%, but there was no statistical significance (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.50; P = 0.30).
conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated that LE 0.5% and FML 0.1% had comparable efficacy in preventing corneal haze and corticosteroid-induced ocular hypertension, with no difference in visual acuity in patients after corneal refractive surgery.
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.