Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparison of Efficacy Between a Phospholipid-Hydroxypropyl Guar Nanoemulsion and Castor Oil-Based Lubricating Eyedrops.
Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare dry eye symptoms using the SANDE questionnaire as well as corneal and conjunctival staining with two propylene glycol lubricating eyedrops that contain very different excipients. Methods: This was a single site, prospective, double-masked, randomized-controlled study with two arms comparing Systane Complete Multi-Dose Preservative Free (MDPF) eyedrops (Systane group) and Walgreen's Lubricant Balance eyedrops (WLB group). Participants were 18-65 years of age, had a total score of 20-55 inclusive on the Symptom Assessment iN Dry Eye (SANDE) questionnaire at the screening visit, and were not current contact lens wearers. Subjects were randomized to either Group. Data were collected for corneal and conjunctival staining, non-invasive tear break-up time (NITBUT), and global SANDE score. Results: A total of 70 participants completed the study (35 in each group). After 2 weeks of eyedrop use, the Systane group had a significantly greater reduction in global SANDE score (-9.9 ± 14.7) compared to the WLB group (-4.13 ± 8.6; p = 0.05). Also, the Systane group had a significantly greater reduction in total staining score (-2.8 ± 1.8) compared to the WLB group (-0.9 ± 1.5; p < 0.001). In addition, the Systane group had a greater increase in NITBUT (3.1 ± 2.9) compared to the WLB group (2.2 ± 4.5), but this was not significant (p = 0.32). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that eyedrops with the same active ingredient, but different excipients, can have differences in performance. Participants reported less dry eye symptoms and presented with reduced clinical signs of dry eye with Systane Complete MDPF compared to those who used WLB. Systane Complete MDPF eyedrops may be a good option for practitioners to recommend for patients with mild to moderate symptoms of dry eye.
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.