Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37312902›Full record

ArticlePostepy dermatologii i alergologii2023

Comparison of olopatadine with ketotifen for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis study.

Shiyu Li, Shenquan Zhong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shiyu LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, The First People's Hospital of Chongqing Liangjiang New Area, Chongqing, China.
Shenquan ZhongDepartment of Ophthalmology, The First People's Hospital of Chongqing Liangjiang New Area, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Allergic conjunctivitis is one of the most common non-traumatic extraocular inflammatory diseases. Aim: The comparison of olopatadine with ketotifen remains elusive for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis, and this meta-analysis aims to explore the impact of olopatadine versus ketotifen on treatment efficacy for allergic conjunctivitis. Material and methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched, and we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of olopatadine versus ketotifen on efficacy in patients with allergic conjunctivitis. Seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Results: Overall, compared with ketotifen intervention for allergic conjunctivitis, olopatadine intervention was associated with substantially lower hyperaemia (mean difference (MD) = -0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.24 to -0.30; Conclusions: These suggested that olopatadine may be more effective to relieve the symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis than ketotifen.

Indexed as

allergic conjunctivitisketotifenmeta-analysisolopatadine

Identifiers

PMID37312902
PMCPMC10258714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.