ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluating the role of Demodex infestation and meibomian gland dysfunction in recurrent corneal erosion syndrome.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Trial
- Current practices and considerations in intense pulsed light therapy for meibomian gland dysfunction.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
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.
Funding
Abstract
This investigation aims to observe the effects of demodex infection and meibomian gland function in recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES), as well as the efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) in treating RCES. The study enrolled thirty patients diagnosed with RCES (30 eyes) alongside a control group of thirty-one individuals (31 eyes). Both cohorts underwent a series of diagnostic evaluations, including eyelash sampling, Demodex mite enumeration, infrared imaging of the meibomian glands, and blepharolipin scoring. The RCES subjects were further categorized into two subgroups upon stabilization for comparative analysis of treatment outcomes: the RCES-A subgroup received IPL therapy (16 patients), and the RCES-B subgroup was administered medication treatment (14 patients). Post-treatment, all participants were re-evaluated using the initial diagnostic procedures to monitor for recurrence. Preliminary findings indicated significant differences between the RCES and control groups in terms of meibomian gland scores (4 [3.0, 4.0] vs. 2 [1.0, 3.0]), blepharolipin scores (15.5 [11.0, 16.8] vs. 8.0 [5.5, 10.0]), and lid margin scores (3.0 [2.8, 3.0] vs. 2.0 [1.0, 3.0]), with P < 0.01 for all comparisons. Additionally, the Demodex count was significantly higher in the RCES group (8.0 [4.0,9.0]) compared to the control (0 [0, 2]) (Z = - 4.13, P = 0.00), with a Demodex positivity rate of 83.3% in the RCES group versus 38.7% in the control group (χ2 = 7.60, P < 0.01). Post-treatment, the RCES-A subgroup exhibited significant improvements in meibomian gland loss scores, blepharolipin scores, lid margin abnormality scores, and a reduction in Demodex counts (P < 0.01), with a post-treatment Demodex positivity rate of 56.3% (P = 0.11). During the follow-up, the RCES-A subgroup experienced a lower relapse rate compared to the RCES-B subgroup (1 vs. 6 patients). The findings suggest a correlation between meibomian gland dysfunction and Demodex infestation with the incidence of RCES. The application of IPL therapy in combination with meibomian gland massage demonstrates significant potential in enhancing meibomian gland functionality, reducing Demodex counts, and effectively mitigating the recurrence of RCES. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/ ChiCTR2000039494 (30/10/2020).
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.