ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Early Real-World Patient and Staff Experience with an Intracanalicular Dexamethasone Insert.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dropless after cataract surgery (DACS): concepts, evidence and clinical potential.Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
- Punctal and Intracanalicular Drug Delivery Systems for Ophthalmic Use: A Narrative Review of Technologies, Clinical Outcomes, and Critical Quality Attributes.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Postoperative Inflammation and Pain Management with Intracanalicular Dexamethasone Insert: Real-World Applications.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Subconjunctival Triamcinolone Acetonide Injection Compared with Dexamethasone Ophthalmic Insert for Inflammation Prophylaxis After Cataract Surgery: A Comparative Clinical Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate both the early experience of real-world patients treated with dexamethasone ophthalmic insert (0.4 mg; DEXTENZA Patients and Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey study of 23 cataract practices in the United States. Respondents were patients and practice staff who had experience with DEX following cataract surgery. Both patients and practice staff completed an online survey. Descriptive statistics summarized the survey responses to portray the experience of the respondents. Results: Surveys were completed by 62 patients and 19 practice staff. Almost all patients (93%) were satisfied or extremely satisfied with DEX. Patients highly preferred DEX (93%) to topical steroid drops (7%) based on past experiences with topical steroid drops. Most practice staff (95%) were satisfied or highly satisfied with DEX, reporting a 45% reduction in time spent educating patients on postoperative drop use and a 46% decrease in time spent addressing calls from pharmacies regarding postoperative medications. Conclusion: Incorporating the DEX insert into clinical practice in cataract surgery practices can improve patient adherence, while potentially providing significant savings to practices in terms of time spent educating patients and responding to patient and pharmacy call-backs.
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.