Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
A Prospective, Crossover, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Study Comparing the Effectiveness and Ocular Comfort of 0.1% Hyaluronic Acid and 0.3% Hyaluronic Acid in Patients With Dry Eye Disease.
Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Randomized Multicenter Study Comparing Low-Viscosity with Comparator 0.3% Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Report the clinical effects and discomfort of using 0.1% hyaluronic acid (HA [Kynex 1 Methods: This study was designed as a prospective, crossover, randomized, and double-blind study. Patients aged >19 years with DED level 2 or higher, corneal staining score > 1, and tear break-up time (TBUT) < 10s were included. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in group 1 were instilled with 0.1% HA for four weeks and then 0.3% HA for the next four weeks. Group 2 patients were instilled with the eye drops in the reverse order of group 1. Patients were evaluated using a corneal staining score, TBUT, and the Standardized Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks. Results: In both groups, 0.3% HA showed an increasing trend in TBUT, although the difference was not statistically significant. Changes in the Schirmer test were greater in group 2, but this difference was also not statistically significant. The corneal staining score improved in both groups, with no statistically significant difference. While 0.3% HA was more effective than 0.1% HA according to the absolute value, this difference was not statistically significant. There was no difference between the two groups in the SPEED questionnaire evaluation that assessed aspects of discomfort, such as blurred vision, foreign body sensation, and burning sensation. Conclusion: 0.3% HA was more effective for treating DED, although the difference was not statistically significant. In terms of discomfort, 0.3% HA showed no difference compared to 0.1% HA. Using both 0.1% HA and 0.3% HA in a tailored treatment approach can improve patient comfort and treatment outcomes.
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.