Trial reportTranslational vision science & technology2025
A Single-Center Sham and Active-Controlled Double-Blind Randomized Crossover Trial of the Magnetic Levator Prosthesis for Severe Blepharoptosis.
Trial report in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04678115 (A Randomized Cross-Over Clinical Trial Comparing Two Non-Surgical Treatments for Severe Blepharoptosis), which is not on this 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.
A Randomized Cross-Over Clinical Trial Comparing Two Non-Surgical Treatments for Severe Blepharoptosis
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the magnetic levator prosthesis (MLP) relative to active control with KT Tape, an elastic therapeutic tape used clinically to mechanically open the lids, and to a sham MLP worn in-office only. Methods: This was a double-masked, randomized crossover single-center trial of patients with severe unilateral or bilateral paralytic blepharoptosis defined as occlusion of the visual axis without frontalis recruitment. Patients were allocated to MLP or tape first and then crossed over after 2 weeks of use and a 2-week washout. Primary outcome was maximum eyelid closure on spontaneous blink measured in video frames with ImageJ. Primary patient-reported outcome was the Glasgow Benefit Inventory and, secondarily, comparison of the amount of eye opening and proportions of complete volitional blinks. Results: Of 16 patients randomized, 15 completed the crossover. MLP and tape equally improved eye opening over sham (MLP, 6.8 mm [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.2-8.4]; tape, 7.0 mm [5.4-8.6]; sham, 3.9 mm [2.3-5.5], all P < 0.001). Spontaneous blinks were significantly better with MLP (2.4 mm [95% CI, 1.5-3.7] compared to tape, 4.1 mm [2.6-6.5], P < 0.001). Incomplete volitional blinks were much more common when wearing tape compared to when wearing the MLP (P < 0.001), which was not different from sham. There was a significant perceived benefit of both MLP and tape (P < 0.001). There were three related nonserious adverse events over 3539 hours of tape use and two related nonserious adverse events over 4632 hours of MLP use. Conclusions: The MLP was superior to KT tape and sham for the treatment of severe blepharoptosis. Translational Relevance: First randomized controlled clinical trial of the MLP. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04678115?cond=Blepharoptosis&term=kinesiotape&rank=1, NCT04678115).
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.