SynthesisIndian journal of ophthalmology2024
Current application of intense pulsed light for the management of dry eye disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tear Film Interferometry, Meibography, and Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography for Rosacea.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Long-Term Impacts of Intense Pulsed Light Therapy on Ocular Surface Health and Tear Film Dynamics in Patients with Dry Eye Disease: Detailed Analysis and Observations Over a 1-Year Follow-Up Period.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review explored intense pulsed light (IPL) as an alternative treatment for dry eye disease (DED) symptom relief by correcting tear-film homeostasis. A systematic search was performed in March 2022 on five databases (Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, ProQuest, and EBSCO). Studies were extracted for the following outcomes of interest: standard patient evaluation of eye dryness questionnaire (SPEED), ocular surface disease index (OSDI), tear break-up time (TBUT), and corneal fluorescein staining (CFS). All studies published up to March 2022 were reviewed. Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) was used to screen studies for risk of bias where appropriate. A meta-analysis was done to quantify any reported quantitative data. Thirteen studies were included in this study. A total of 931 individuals and 1454 numbers of eyes were reviewed in this meta-analysis. Among studies that explored and reported the effect of IPL in individuals with DED, TBUT and OSDI improved significantly post intervention, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 1.02 [95% CI 0.41-1.64] and 0.28 [95% CI 0.04-0.52], respectively. CFS and SPEED scores, however, showed no statistically significant difference, with an SMD of 0.22 [95% CI -0.19 to 0.64] and 0.28 [95% CI -0.11 to 0.66], respectively. In conclusion, current evidence indicates IPL as a possible adjunctive treatment in individuals with DED in an otherwise limited treatment option. Further studies through more extensive trials are needed to validate this finding and elucidate its mechanism.
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.