Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2025
Safety and efficacy of a novel intense pulsed light system in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized, double-masked, intra-individual controlled study.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05089591 (Efficacy of Intense Pulsed Light Treatment in Patients With Meibomian Gland Dysfunction), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Efficacy of Intense Pulsed Light Treatment in Patients With Meibomian Gland Dysfunction
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Technological Interventions for Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Random-Effects Network Meta-analysis of 3-Month Outcomes.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntense pulsed light (IPL) therapy is an approach to ameliorate meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). A novel IPL system for the treatment of MGD is the LacryStim device. The aim of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of the LacryStim device in patients with MGD.
methodsThis study was conducted in a prospective, randomized, intra-individual sham-controlled, double-masked design. Three treatment visits and three study visits at baseline and after three and six months were performed. The randomized study eye (SE) was treated using 8 J/cm
resultsFifty eyes of 25 patients were included in the study. While no significant differences between both groups regarding meibum quality and expressibility could be detected at the six months visit, there was a tendency towards better expressibility in both groups after six months (SEs: - 0.4, p = 0.07; CEs: - 0.4, p = 0.04). Additionally, a significant improvement in numeric rating scale in both eyes and OSDI score (both p < 0.05) at all follow-up visits and no device-related adverse events were observed.
conclusionTo our knowledge this is the first prospective evaluation of a novel IPL device. There was a significant amelioration of subjective complaints and a tendency towards better expressibility in both study and control eyes. An intra-individual design might compound the individual analysis of either eyes in studies investigating IPL. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05089591.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40524073What 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.