Trial reportEuropean journal of ophthalmology2023
Cationic nanoemulsion vs. 0.15% sodium hyaluronate artificial tears in the healing process following modern surface keratorefractive surgery.
Trial report in European journal of 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, 0 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the influence of artificial tears containing either cationic nanoemulsion (CCN) or sodium hyaluronate artificial tears (SH) on early postoperative healing after modern surface refractive surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this multicenter, prospective, double-masked, parallel-group (1:1), comparative study, 129 patients (n = 255 eyes) were randomized to receive CCN (n = 128) or SH (n = 127) as an adjuvant treatment after either transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (transPRK) or Epi-Bowman keratectomy (EBK). The patients' perspectives were gathered using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, and uncorrected (UCVA), and corrected (BCVA) visual acuity were assessed before and one week and one month after the procedure. In addition, corneal epithelization and subjective assessment of visual blur and eye irritation on drop instillation were assessed at one week postoperatively.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were found between two groups in age, spherical equivalent refractive error, UCVA, BCVA or OSDI scores before the procedure. There was also no difference between groups in UCVA one week and one month after the procedure. However, statistically significantly lower OSDI scores were found one week and one month after the procedure in the CCN group. Moreover, blurred vision after use of the eye drops was observed less frequently in the CCN group than in the SH group.
conclusionsThe CCN and SH groups had similar postoperative UCVA. However the significantly lower OSDI scores and less frequently blurred vision after application of the eye drops in the CCN group suggest better subjective outcomes in this group.
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.