Trial reportTurkish journal of ophthalmology2025
Comparison of 20% Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Conventional Treatment in Moderate to Severe Dry Eye Patients.
Trial report in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subconjunctival injectable platelet-rich fibrin for severe dry eye disease: Preliminary clinical results.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Serum Eye Drops: Implementation, Upscaling, and Patient-Centered Care - Insights from a Blood Bank in Western Austria.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2026Review
- Platelets in Dry Eye Disease: A Narrative Review of Biological Mechanisms and Therapeutic Applications Derived from Platelets.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Blood Derivatives in the Therapy of Ocular Surface Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Letter to the Editor Re: "Comparison of 20% Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Conventional Treatment in Moderate to Severe Dry Eye Patients".Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Reply.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Comparative Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Autologous Serum, and Artificial Tears in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional therapy and 20% autologous platelet-rich plasma (aPRP) eye drops for moderate to severe dry eye disease (DED). Materials and Methods: In this prospective interventional study, 40 individuals (80 eyes) with moderate to severe DED were analyzed. Twenty patients each were randomly assigned to the study and control groups. The study group was given 20% aPRP eye drops; the control group was given artificial tears as per conventional treatment. Comprehensive eye examinations including evaluation of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), tear meniscus height, tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer's test, corneal fluorescein staining, conjunctival impression cytology, and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) were conducted in both groups for 3 months. Pre- and posttreatment results were compared. Results: The average age of patients in the study group was 51±14 years (range, 37-65 years), whereas that of the control group was 50±17 years (range, 33-67 years). After 3 months, there was a more significant decrease in OSDI score in the study group than in the control group (p<0.01). The BCVA data demonstrated no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). Measurements of tear meniscus height, Schirmer's value, and TBUT at 3 months showed statistically significant differences (p<0.01). The posttreatment improvements in fluorescein staining and impression cytology scores in the study group were markedly superior to those in the control group (p<0.01). Conclusion: aPRP is both safe and more effective than conventional treatments for moderate to severe symptomatic DED.
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.