ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2024
Effectiveness and safety of a thermo-mechanical action device versus thermal pulsation device in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 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.
- USB-powered vs. self-heating warm compresses for meibomian gland dysfunction: A prospective randomized crossover clinical trial.PloS one · 2026Trial
- LipiFlow and the Transformation of Therapeutic Meibomian Gland Expression into Routine Clinical Practice.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Combined meibomian gland massage and acupuncture enhances tear film and ocular surface health in meibomian gland dysfunction.American journal of translational research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of thermo-mechanical action (Tixel C, Novoxel) compared with thermal pulsation (LipiFlow, Johnson & Johnson) in meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD).
settingPrivate clinics and University clinic, USA.
designProspective, randomized (1:1), evaluator-masked, multicenter study.
methodsSubjects with Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) between 23 and 79, fluorescein tear break-up time (TBUT) <10 s and Meibomian Gland Score (MGS) ≤12 in each eye received bilateral thermo-mechanical action (TMA) or thermal pulsation (TP). The treatment consisted of three sessions, two weeks apart, for TMA and one session for TP. TBUT, OSDI, MGS, and corneal and conjunctival staining (CCS) were assessed at baseline and at Weeks 4 and 12 post-last treatment session. The primary effectiveness endpoint was change in TBUT at Week 4.
resultsAmong the 106 treated subjects (N=53 per group), TBUT improved significantly (p<0.001) by 3.0±3.2 and 3.1±4.3 seconds after TMA and 2.7±2.7 and 3.3±3.6 seconds after TP, at Week 4 and Week 12, respectively. The change in TBUT for TMA was non-inferior to TP (linear mixed-effects model, p<0.001). OSDI, MGS and CCS significantly improved from baseline (p<0.001), with no significant between-group differences (p>0.05). OSDI improved by 26.4±21.1 and 28.6±22.4 after TMA and 18.8±21.0 and 21.9±18.5 after TP, at Week 4 and Week 12, respectively. No device-related adverse event occurred in either group.
conclusionTMA safely and effectively improved clinical signs and symptoms of evaporative dry eye disease associated with MGD over a 12-week period, comparable to TP.
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.