ReviewPostepy dermatologii i alergologii2024
Comparative assessment of alcaftadine and olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis.
Review in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: It is unclear to compare the efficacy of alcaftadine versus olopatadine for patients with allergic conjunctivitis, and this meta-analysis aims to perform the comparative assessment of their efficacy for allergic conjunctivitis. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing alcaftadine with olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis. The random-effect model was used for the significant heterogeneity, and otherwise the fixed-effect model was used. Results: Twelve RCTs and 1064 patients with allergic conjunctivitis were included in this meta-analysis. In comparison with olopatadine intervention, alcaftadine intervention demonstrated a comparable ocular symptom score on 3 days (MD = -0.06; 95% CI = -0.19 to 0.07; Conclusions: Alcaftadine had better capability to treat allergic conjunctivitis compared to olopatadine.
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.