Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40370733›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Quantitative assessment of redness in Asian patients with recurrent blepharitis: the utility of cross-polarized light.

Yue Tan, Wenjia Sun, Yue Yin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Yue TanEye & ENT Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Wenjia SunDermatology Department, Shanghai United Family Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Yue YinEye & ENT Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To establish an objective and quantitative method of evaluation redness in patients with blepharitis. Methods: 12 adult Asian patients with recurrent blepharitis were enrolled in the case group. 24 healthy controls, matched for age and gender in a 1:2 ratio, were recruited as the health group. Population characteristics, related medical histories and clinical indices of both groups were recorded. Redness area proportion of eyelid (RAE%) and eyelid margin (RAM%), were evaluated by cross-polarized light (Vplus Results: The population characteristics and clinical indices of two groups adhered to the study design. The score chart of principal component analysis shows significant differences in protein expression of eyelid secretions between two groups. The mean ± SD (standard deviation) values of RAE% and RAM% in the health group were 1.88 ± 2.53% and 1.63 ± 2.04%, respectively. The case group had the RAE% of 6.54 ± 7.20% (mean ± SD) and the RAM% of 17.14 ± 18.90% (mean ± SD), which were both significantly higher than those in the health group (all Conclusion: By using cross-polarized light, characteristic changes of redness can be observed in patients with recurrent blepharitis. RAM%, has a great potential value for standardizing and quantifying the inflammatory status of blepharitis.

Indexed as

blepharitiscross-polarized lighthyperemiaredness area proportiontelangiectasis

Identifiers

PMID40370733
PMCPMC12075134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.