SynthesisClinical & experimental ophthalmology2025
Evidence on the Use of Topical Ciclosporin for Ocular Surface Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical & experimental ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of cyclosporine 1% eye drops for the treatment of pediatric blepharokeratoconjunctivitis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- From Molecular Understanding and Pathophysiology to Disease Management; A Practical Approach and Guidance to the Management of the Ocular Manifestations of Cystinosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo identify evidence on the use of topical CsA for ocular surface diseases (OSD).
methodsA literature search was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) through June 2023 via Cochrane Central Registries, Clinical Trials Registry, Grey literature and citation searching. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in which different concentrations of topical CsA were compared with one another or other topical therapies were included. Risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane ROB2 standard tool. Meta-analysis was considered when data were sufficient. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).
resultsFive hundred and eight-three RCT publication titles were identified, of which 48 OSD RCTs were included. Thirty trials found significantly better efficacy with CsA irrespective of dose or concentration for OSD. The effect of CsA was comparable to artificial tears (AT), vehicle, fluorometholone 0.1%, tacrolimus 0.03% or diquafosol 3% only in 13 trials. Improved outcomes with CsA for symptoms (RCTs comprising 1107-patients) and clinical signs, including in ocular surface staining (2505-patients) and the average number of goblet cells (138-patients) were found. Inconsistency of treatment effect on symptoms and signs, particularly tear film function, was evident in some trials. Ten trials were judged to be at high risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was judged to be low to moderate, downgraded mostly for imprecision and risk of bias.
conclusionsTopical CsA treatment effect on ocular surface symptoms and staining suggests that CsA may be superior to the vehicle, AT or other topical treatment alternatives for OSD.
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.