ReviewEye (London, England)2024
Real or MADE-up: Investigating Mask-Associated Dry Eye (MADE) as an emerging syndrome.
Review in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Health to Disease: A Comprehensive Review of Ocular Surface Microbiota and Detection Methods in Dry Eye.Current microbiology · 2026Review
- Impact of mask wearing on cultivable conjunctival bacteria in Chinese healthcare workers.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mask-Associated Dry Eye (MADE) has emerged as a consequence of widespread face mask usage during the Covid-19 pandemic. This review critically assesses the available evidence. A comprehensive search on PUBMED and EMBASE was conducted to identify studies on MADE, which were then categorized based on their design. A total of 26 studies were critically appraised, with the majority exhibiting poor study design quality. Investigating the impact of mask use on ocular surface irritation faced challenges due to global mask mandates, pandemic-related behavioural changes, and a lack of validated methods to measure the response to mask wear. Among the 15 studies, 12 reported a statistically significant reduction in TBUT associated with mask wear; however, the median decrease of 1.3 s was considered clinically insignificant. Results from Schirmer's test in 8 studies varied, with 5 studies reporting a decrease, contradicting the hypothesis of misdirected airflow. Out of 7 studies on corneal and conjunctival staining, 6 indicated a worsening associated with mask wear. Five studies investigating OSDI scores reported an increase following mask wear, but 3 studies repeated the survey too soon. Limited evidence suggests that masks may cause mild ocular surface irritation, but the quality and certainty of this evidence remain low. Methodological limitations were prevalent across the majority of studies, and the observed changes were minimal. Therefore, it is unlikely that significant ocular surface pathology will develop in the majority of mask wearers. Currently, there is insufficient data to support the establishment of a new syndrome.
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.