SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
Safety and efficacy of rebamipide compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC 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.
- Practical Guide to the Local Treatment of Sjogren's Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of the Therapeutic Effects of Rebamipide and Diquafosol on Apoptotic Damage of the Ocular Surface in Dry Eyes.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRebamipide (RBM) is a novel drug that increases mucin secretion on the ocular surface. Nevertheless, the therapeutic efficacy of topical RBM for dry eye disease (DED) treatment remains inconclusive. Accordingly, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of RBM for DED treatment.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for eligible RCTs. The primary outcome was posttreatment changes in tear breakup time (TBUT). We also assessed changes in the values of Schirmer's test (Sch), corneal fluorescein staining scores, and DED-related symptom scores.
resultsWe retrieved 12 RCTs with 1368 eyes published during 2012-2023. The results demonstrated that compared with artificial tears, 2% RBM significantly increased the TBUT [standard mean difference (SMD) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.20 to 2.64]. Moreover, 2% RBM led to more significant improvements in overall DED-related symptom scores than did artificial tears (SMD = - 1.61, 95% CI = - 2.61 to - 0.61). The differences in the adverse events between the 2% RBM and artificial tears groups were nonsignificant (SMD = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.62 to 2.44).
conclusionTopical RBM ophthalmic suspension is a safe and effective treatment for DED patients. Compared to artificial tears, 2% RBM improved TBUT and subjective symptoms of DED. It may be considered as the first-line treatment option for short- TBUT dry eye patients.
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.