Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40259827›Full record

ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025

Preservatives in artificial tears: Assessing impact on dry eye symptoms: Findings from 67 951 questionnaire responses-Project FOREVER.

Astrid Dissing Sjö, Jens Rovelt, Simone Ahrenberg, Miriam Kolko

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Astrid Dissing SjöDepartment of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9063-4188
Jens RoveltDepartment of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4114-0267
Simone AhrenbergDepartment of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Miriam KolkoDepartment of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8697-0734

Funding

A.P. Møller FondenAsta & Jul. P. Justesens FondDanish Life Science ClusterMauritzen La Fontaine FamiliefondSynoptik-FondenVelux Fonden 00048932
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the association between the presence of dry eye disease (DED) symptoms when using BAK-preserved artificial tears (AT) compared to preservative-free AT.

methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we used data collected as part of Project 'Finding Ophthalmic Risk and Evaluating the Value of Eye exams and their predictive Reliability' (FOREVER). To analyse the strength and direction of associations, we used binomial logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, smoking and eye diseases. The analysis was conducted on responses regarding AT formulations and seven distinct DED symptoms from 67 951 participants in Project FOREVER, including 8039 AT users.

resultsOur analysis showed statistically significant higher odds ratios (ORs) of experiencing itching and blurred vision among users of BAK-preserved AT compared to preservative-free AT users, with ORs of 1.26 (95% CI 1.01-1.58) and 1.28 (95% CI 1.02-1.60), respectively. Additionally, a borderline significant trend indicated an increased number of DED symptoms in the BAK-preserved AT group compared to preservative-free AT users. Furthermore, our study provided a comprehensive overview of AT usage patterns within the cohort, illustrating the proportion of users for each type of AT.

conclusionOur findings suggest that BAK-preserved AT may worsen DED symptoms. We found higher ORs for experiencing itching and blurred vision as well as a tendency towards experiencing a higher number of symptoms when using BAK-preserved AT compared to preservative-free AT. Further longitudinal studies with additional questions on AT usage and clinical assessments are needed to validate these findings and optimize AT formulations for safer, effective DED management.

Indexed as

Dry Eye SyndromesLubricant Eye DropsPreservatives, PharmaceuticalAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesLubricant Eye DropsPreservatives, Pharmaceuticalartificial tearsBAKbenzalkonium chlorideDEDdry eye diseaselubricating eye dropsocular surface diseasepreservativesquestionnaire data

Identifiers

PMID40259827
PMCPMC12531610

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.