ReviewCureus2024
Efficacy and Safety of Nanoparticle Loteprednol Etabonate Compared to Vehicle in Post-cataract Surgery Pain and Anterior Chamber Inflammation Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cataracts are a leading cause of blindness worldwide, with phacoemulsification being the most widely used surgical method for cataract extraction due to its proven effectiveness. Managing postoperative inflammation following ocular surgery is crucial, and topical ocular corticosteroids have become an essential part of this therapeutic approach. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nanoparticle-sized loteprednol etabonate (LE) formulations in comparison to a placebo, utilizing a systematic review and meta-analysis. We conducted a comprehensive search across Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EBSCO, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared nanoparticle-sized LE formulations with placebo were included. Efficacy was measured by the resolution of anterior chamber cells (ACC) and anterior chamber flare (ACF), as well as pain relief. Safety was assessed by tracking adverse events (AEs). The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Eight RCTs involving 2,375 participants met our criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that both 0.38% and 1.00% LE formulations significantly improved ACC resolution, with the 1.00% formulation showing a higher efficacy (relative risk (RR)=1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.58-2.2, P<0.01, I²=40%). Furthermore, the 1.00% LE formulation was more effective in relieving pain compared to placebo (RR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.39-1.66, P<0.01, I²=20%). Both LE formulations were associated with few adverse events, and the 1.00% LE formulation had a lower risk of such events compared to placebo. However, no significant differences were observed in terms of joint swelling, stiffness, or mortality. In conclusion, our meta-analysis supports the use of nanoparticle-sized LE for managing inflammation and pain post-cataract surgery, with the 1.00% formulation proving to be more effective than both 0.38% LE and placebo. Both formulations were found to be generally safe, though additional research is needed to further evaluate long-term outcomes and safety.
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.