ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2024
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 2024. 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic blepharitis is a common cause of eye irritation and dryness. They are often treated without regard to causal factors such as parasites which are rarely mentioned.
aimTo describe the role of Demodex in the pathogenesis of chronic blepharitis, to analyze the epidemiological, clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic particularities.
methodsThis is a prospective, case-control study conducted in the mycology parasitology department at the Habib Bourguiba university hospital in Sfax covering 100 cases with chronic blepharitis and 87 control cases. Clinical examination and eyelash removal were performed with direct examination for qualitative and quantitative analysis, before and after treatment.
resultsDemodex was significantly more found in patients than in controls (48% vs 13.8%). The quantitative analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups with 52.1% of Demodex (+++) for patients versus 8.3% for controls. Demodex blepharitis were treated with yellow oxid mercure ophthalmic ointment with a good outcome in 81,3%.
conclusionAlthough it is admitted to be a saprophyte of the skin, a large number of arguments argues for the incrimination of Demodex in the etiopathogenesis of chronic blepharitis, hence the interest of eyelashes examination and a parasitic research in front of any chronic blepharitis resistant to usual treatments. In case of positive research, a specific treatment should be prescribed. Its effectiveness is another argument for the etiological diagnosis.
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.