ArticleCureus2025
A Retrospective Crossover Study on Cross-Linked Hyaluronic Acid Gel (Lacrifill) Versus Cyclosporine A 0.05% (Restasis) for Dry Eye Disease.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Combined use of insulin eye drops and cross-linked hyaluronic acid canalicular gel for the management of severe neurotrophic keratopathy.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis retrospective crossover study compares two-month outcomes of cyclosporine A ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% (Restasis) versus cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel (Lacrifill), a novel canalicular occlusive device, in 20 patients with refractory aqueous-deficient dry eye disease (DED) at a rural optometry clinic.
methodsIn patients with moderate to severe DED, two-month outcomes for Restasis and Lacrifill (after a washout period) were compared using tear breakup time (TBUT), Schirmer scores, corneal staining (Efron scale), and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used (p<0.05), with strict adherence to ethical compliance.
resultsBoth treatments improved TBUT, Schirmer scores, corneal staining, and OSDI from baseline (p<0.001). Lacrifill outperformed Restasis: TBUT (+2.28 vs. +1.30 s, p<0.001), Schirmer (+2.33 vs. +1.08 mm, p=0.001), staining (-1.03 vs. -0.55 grade, p=0.003), and OSDI (-33.33 vs. -10.83 points, p<0.001). Eye-level analyses (N=40) confirmed these findings, with no age or sex associations (p>0.05).
conclusionLacrifill provided superior tear retention and symptom relief during the first two months of treatment compared to Restasis in refractory aqueous-deficient DED, supporting occlusion therapies in DED management. Larger prospective trials are needed to confirm efficacy and explore the use of combination therapies (typically three to six months).
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.