ReviewActa ophthalmologica2025
Can the choice of artificial tears harm patients? A narrative review with an overview of the Nordic market.
Review in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Switching from preserved to preservative-free artificial tears and short-term change in dry eye symptoms and signs: a prospective self-controlled clinic cohort.International ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Efficacy and safety of pilocarpine as a secretagogue versus artificial tears in the management of dry eye disease.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026Article
- [Drug Excipients. Necessary, but not Harmless].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2025Review
- Can the choice of artificial tears harm patients? A narrative review with an overview of the Nordic market.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide an overview of artificial tears marketed in the following Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden. Furthermore, this review aimed to highlight the different preservatives and other constituents found in artificial tears in the Nordic market, focussing on adverse effects.
methodsArtificial tears appearing in online pharmacies in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland were included, and tables listing their components were created. Based on the preservatives and other constituents found in the artificial tears on the Nordic market, a literature search was conducted to investigate differences and potential adverse effects. This was achieved using PubMed with MeSH and free text search terms. Included articles were (i) studies performed on humans in vivo or in vitro human models, (ii) published between 2000 and 2023 and (iii) focussing on adverse effects, preservatives, toxicity, other constituents and preservative-free artificial tears.
resultsA total of 88 artificial tears were found on the Nordic market. Approximately 32% (28 out of 88) of the artificial tears contain preservatives. Eleven of these are preserved with benzalkonium chloride (BAK) or cetrimide. After a thorough literature search, evidence has been found for the toxic effects of BAK and cetrimide. There is no evidence of toxic effects of lubricants, osmoprotectants and lipids.
conclusionsThe findings of this review highlight the paradoxical fact that many treatments for ocular surface diseases contain toxic preservatives that may lead to worsening of the condition. In particular, long-time toxic effects of BAK may contribute to disease progression.
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.