Observational studyBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Polihexanide (PHMB) 0.08% versus currently used treatments for
Observational study in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Antibiotics: The Expanding Role of Non-Antibiotic Therapies in Veterinary Ophthalmology.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Acanthamoeba keratitis: from pathophysiology to prevention, a contemporary clinical perspective.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aims
methodsA patient-level indirect treatment comparison (ITC) compared data from a pivotal trial of PHMB 0.08% and a retrospective real-world study of current treatments: (1) any anti-amoebic treatment (AAT), (2) PHMB 0.02% plus a diamidine (propamidine or hexamidine) 0.1% and (3) chlorhexidine (CXL) 0.02% alone or in combination with a diamidine. The primary outcome was the clinical resolution rate (CRR) without surgery within 12 months. ITCs were implemented using propensity scoring analysis with overlap weighting and adjustment for covariates (age, sex, disease stage, treatment delay, prior use of corticosteroid or antiviral).
resultsThe CRR was 84.8% for PHMB 0.08% (n=66), 43.6% for any AAT (n=227), 55.0% for PHMB 0.02% plus a diamidine (n=111) and 40.0% for CXL 0.02% with or without a diamidine (n=35). In the unweighted analysis, the absolute difference (95% CI) in favour of PHMB 0.08% was 41.2% (28.8%, 51.2%; p<0.001) compared with any AAT, 29.9% (14.5%, 42.1%; p<0.001) compared with PHMB 0.02% plus a diamidine and 44.8% (23.9%, 62.3%; p<0.001) compared with CXL 0.02% with or without a diamidine. Similar results were observed in the weighted analyses.
conclusionsThese results suggest that PHMB 0.08% when delivered with the recommended protocol is significantly more effective than currently used treatments in achieving clinical resolution without surgery. The study limitations include differences in recruitment periods, diagnostic criteria and drug delivery methodology, as well as limitations of the ITC adjustment measures which can lead to residual confounding.
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.