ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
The Efficacy and Safety of Dexamethasone Intracanalicular Insert Use in Patients with Chronic Seasonal/Perennial Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Seasonal variations and environmental factors associated with allergic ocular surface disease: A prospective observational study of clinical presentation patterns in South Asian region.International ophthalmology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of DEXTENZA, an intracanalicular dexamethasone insert, for the treatment of seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis. Methods: Multiple databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and Scopus, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of DEXTENZA with a placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence, and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was employed to assess bias. Results: Four RCTs involving 323 participants met the eligibility criteria, and all had a low risk of bias. A meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the mean CAC change for conjunctival itching, with low heterogeneity among measurements at 3 minutes (P < 0.00001, I2 = 47%), 5 minutes (P < 0.00001, I2 = 46%), and 7 minutes (P < 0.00001, I2 = 41%). Additionally, the meta-analysis found a statistically significant increase in the mean CAC change for conjunctival redness with low heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I2 = 15%). The pooled analysis showed no significant difference (P = 0.57, I2 = 0%) between the DEXTENZA and placebo groups in the frequency of adverse events. Conclusion: DEXTENZA has emerged as a promising and viable treatment option for patients with seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis and is an effective alternative to current therapeutic modalities.
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.