ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma and Artificial Tears for Treatment of Chronic Evaporative Dry Eye Patients: A Prospective Interventional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDry eye is a multifactorial ocular surface disorder. While artificial tears and anti-inflammatory medications are standard treatment, blood derivatives such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) offer regenerative benefits as well and are gaining popularity in ophthalmology. This study aimed at the comparative evaluation of the clinical outcomes of autologous PRP eye drop and artificial tear eye drop (AT) therapy in the treatment of chronic evaporative dry eye patients with moderate to severe symptoms.
methods100 patients with chronic (≥ 6 months duration) evaporative moderate to severe dry eye disease (DED) in the 18 years to 45 years age group were included in this prospective interventional study. We randomized patients into two equal groups (n = 50 each). One group received autologous PRP eye drops and the other AT drops. The outcome measures evaluated were subjective symptoms (ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score), objective tear film parameters (Oxford corneal fluorescence staining (CFS) score, tear breakup time (TBUT), and Schirmer's test (ST) score), and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (converted to LogMAR, with improvement defined as a gain of ≥ 1 Snellen line). Within the group and between the group, comparisons were done at the end of 6 months using paired and unpaired student's t-tests, respectively.
resultsAt the end of 6 months, both the treatment groups (PRP and AT) showed significant improvement in OSDI and CFS scores, whereas TBUT and BCVA improved significantly only in the PRP group. No significant changes were observed in ST in either group. The post-treatment, between-the-groups analysis also favored PRP in all the parameters except ST. The PRP group showed significantly better improvements than the AT group in OSDI (MD, i.e., mean difference = -20.9,
conclusionIn chronic evaporative DED patients, autologous PRP showed significantly better clinical outcomes than AT and was found to be safe when given for a 6-month duration.
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.