ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Light-Based Devices in the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intense pulsed light as a multi-target intervention paradigm for refractory ocular surface diseases: a review.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2026Review
- Standardization of meibomian gland dysfunction in an Egyptian population sample using a non-contact meibography technique.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Current practices and considerations in intense pulsed light therapy for meibomian gland dysfunction.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare different light-based devices, namely, intense pulsed light (IPL) and IPL with low-level light therapy (LLLT), in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD).
methodsThis was a prospective, observational study that included patients with MGD. Group 1 included 58 eyes treated with IPL (eye-light®, Espansione Marketing S.p.A., Bologna, Italy), followed by LLLT (my-mask®, Espansione Marketing S.p.A., Bologna, Italy); Group 2 included 60 eyes treated with IPL (E>Eye®, E-Swin, Houdan, France); and Group 3 included 58 eyes treated with IPL (Thermaeye Plus®, OptiMed, Sydney, Australia). The presence of symptoms (Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI)) and ocular surface changes were evaluated at baseline, three weeks, and six months after treatment.
resultsAt week three, there was an improvement in the OSDI in all groups (p<0.001), without differences among them (p=0.339). The lipid layer thickness (LLT) increased in Groups 1 and 2 (p<0.001), with a similar variation (p=0.144). Patients with superior OSDI and lower LLT at baseline had the greatest improvement in the respective parameters (p<0.001). The basal tear flow increased in Group 1 (p=0.012). Corneal staining (CS) significantly decreased in Groups 2 (p<0.001) and 3 (p<0.001). At six months, compared to three weeks, there was further improvement in the OSDI (p<0.001) and the LLT (p=0.007), in Group 1, and an increase in the presence of CS in Group 3 (p=0.011).
conclusionIPL treatment led to a sustained decrease in patients' symptoms, even after six months. Different IPL devices seem to have different beneficial effects. Adding LLLT to IPL appears to have an additional long-term beneficial effect as well as positive effects on the lacrimal gland.
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.