ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Oral Azithromycin versus Oral Doxycycline in the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immune inflammatory targets and anti-inflammatory therapy in dry eye disease.International ophthalmology · 2026Review
- A Short-Term Comparative Evaluation of Multiple Treatment Modalities for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Prospective Clinical Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Note on Literature Review Related to "Oral Azithromycin Versus Oral Doxycycline in the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" [Letter].Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The first-line treatment approach of Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) comprises conservative management, but antibiotics with anti-inflammatory properties are recommended in severe or persistent cases. Oral doxycycline and oral azithromycin are commonly used antibiotics for managing MGD. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing their efficacy and safety is needed. Patients and Methods: This study adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on patients with MGD. The primary outcomes assessed were symptom score, sign score, and overall clinical response. Adverse events were also evaluated. Multiple databases were comprehensively searched, and data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent authors. Results: Four trials and a quasi-experimental study involving 612 participants/eyes were included. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significantly lower mean sign score in the oral azithromycin group than in the doxycycline group. However, one RCT reported a lower mean symptom score in the doxycycline group. No significant differences were found in the means of total scores between the two groups. Systemic adverse events such as nausea, abdominal cramps, decrease in appetite, and diarrhea were more prevalent in the doxycycline group. Conclusion: The systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that oral azithromycin may be more effective in reducing signs of MGD than oral doxycycline. However, the results regarding symptom scores and total scores were inconclusive. Azithromycin also demonstrated a better safety profile with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events. Further research is needed to determine the optimal antibiotic treatment for MGD.
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.