Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39931678›Full record

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.

Seong-Jae Kim, Woong-Sun Yoo, Lee-Ha Kwon, Rock Bum Kim, Hyeon-Jeong Yoon, Kyung Chul Yoon

Abstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Seong-Jae Kim *Department of Ophthalmology, Institute of Medical Science, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, South Korea.
Woong-Sun Yoo *Department of Ophthalmology, Institute of Medical Science, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2279-2929
Lee-Ha KwonDepartment of Ophthalmology, Institute of Medical Science, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, South Korea.
Rock Bum KimRegional Cardiocerebrovascular Disease Center, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5868-0465
Hyeon-Jeong YoonDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, South Korea.
Kyung Chul YoonDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

0.1% hyaluronic acid0.3% hyaluronic aciddry eye disease

Identifiers

PMID39931678
PMCPMC11809210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.