Trial reportScientific reports2024
Comparing two mucin secretagogues for the treatment of dry eye disease: a prospective randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Comparison of immediate therapeutic effects of 3% diquafosol and 2% rebamipide in dry eye disease: a prospective, randomized, paired-eye trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Effectiveness of cyclosporine nanoemulsion eye drops in patients with mild-to-moderate dry eyes: objective and subjective evaluation.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- Pharmacological, Natural and Emerging Therapies for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Review.Drugs · 2026Review
- Redefining Dry Eye Disease Management: Emerging Pharmacologic and Device-Based Therapies in the Era of Precision Care: A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Approach to the patient: therapeutic mitigation of lacrimal manifestations in thyroid eye disease.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Review
- The effect of diquafosol on tear film inflammatory markers in patients with dry eye: A noncomparative, open-label, proof-of-concept study.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Rebamipide Enhances Pathogen Defense and Mitigates Inflammation in a Particulate Matter-Induced Ocular Surface Inflammation Rat Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Applications of Diquafosol Sodium in Ophthalmology: A Comprehensive Review of Therapeutic Utility.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Genes, guts, and microbes: decoding host-driven microbial regulation using intestine-specific conditional knockouts.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and investigate patients' preferences for two mucin secretagogues in the treatment of dry eye disease (DED). Thirty patients with DED were randomly treated with either 3% diquafosol or 2% rebamipide ophthalmic solution for 4 weeks, followed by an additional 4-week treatment using the other eye drop after a 2-week washout period. Objective and subjective assessments, including the corneal and conjunctival staining score, tear breakup time (TBUT), Schirmer 1 test, tear osmolarity, tear matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), lipid layer thickness (LLT) and ocular surface disease index (OSDI), were performed at baseline, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and 10 weeks. Patient preferences were assessed based on four categories (comfort, efficacy, convenience, willingness to continue) using a questionnaire and the overall subjective satisfaction score for each drug was obtained at the end of the trial. In total, 28 eyes from 28 patients were included in the analysis. Both diquafosol and rebamipide significantly improved the OSDI (p = 0.033 and 0.034, respectively), TBUT (p < 0.001 and 0.026, respectively), and corneal (p < 0.001 and 0.001, respectively) and conjunctival (p = 0.017 and 0.042, respectively) staining after 4 weeks of treatment. An increase in Schirmer test scores was observed only after rebamipide treatment (p = 0.007). No significant changes were detected in tear osmolarity, MMP-9, and LLT following both treatments. The patients' preference was slightly greater for diquafosol (46.4%) than rebamipide (36.7%), presumably due to rebamipide's bitter taste. The self-efficacy of both drugs and overall satisfaction scores were comparable. These findings indicate that two mucin secretagogues showed comparable effects in ameliorating symptoms and improving signs (TBUT, corneal and conjunctival staining) in patients with DED.
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.