ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Function of levator palpebrae superioris in dry eye disease.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effect of levator palpebrae superioris in patients with dry eye disease.
methods168 eyes of 84 patients (group 1 = fair levator function ≤ 9 mm, 78 eyes; group 2 = good levator function > 9 mm, 90 eyes) were retrospectively enrolled. Levator function test, Ocular Surface Disease Index Questionnaire (OSDI), Schirmer I test, noninvasive tear break up time (NItBUT), corneal staining score, meibography, meibum quality and expressibility scores, tear meniscus height, and partial blinking rate (PBR) were examined.
resultsThere was no statistically significant differences between group 1 (0.45 ± 0.76) and 2 (0.58 ± 0.76) according to OSDI and corneal stain (P > 0.05). PBR and NItBUT in group 2 (9.29 ± 4.01 and 4.76 ± 2.39, respectively) were significantly worse than those in group 1 (5.88 ± 3.99 and 5.78 ± 2.94, respectively) (P < 0.05). There was a significantly positive correlation between levator function and partial blinking rate (R = 0.4114, P = 0.0002). Meibum expressibility and lipid thickness in group 2 (0.48 ± 0.70 and 1.39 ± 0.45, respectively) were significantly better than those in group 1 (1.29 ± 0.65 and 1.12 ± 0.33, respectively) (P < 0.05) (Fig. 3). There was a significantly negative correlation between levator function and meibum expressibility grade (R = -0.3869, P = 0.0006) (Fig. 5).
conclusionThe eyes with good levator function showed shorter tear break-up time due to a higher partial blinking rate, but showed better lipid thickness due to better meibum expressibility compared with the eyes with fair levator function. Evaporative dry eye disease in the eyes with good levator function can be compensated for by a better meibum expressibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40085259What 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.