ArticlePloS one2025
Development of a novel eye drop aid and evaluation of its efficacy.
Article in PloS one, 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
purposeThe aim of this study was to develop a new eye drop aid and investigate its efficacy in glaucoma patients.
methodsThe developed eye drop aid is compatible with most therapeutic eye drops and helps users with limited neck retroversion. Adult glaucoma patients admitted to the University of Yamanashi Hospital for glaucoma surgery who fulfilled the following criteria were included: a history of using glaucoma eye drops for at least 6 months, no upper limb loss or dysfunction, and no physical or cognitive disturbances that would interfere with activities of daily living. In terms of corrected visual acuity, the included patients had a logMAR score of at least 1 in at least one eye. Eye drops containing a 0.1% sodium hyaluronate ophthalmic mixture were used in this study. The eye drops were applied to the eyes in the seated position as they would normally be used. The use of the eye drop aid was explained, and the patients tried to instill eye drops with the eye drop aid after two trials. The patients then instilled one eye drop in the supine position, first without the eye drop aid and then with the eye drop aid. Success was defined as the eye drops being dropped into the conjunctival cul-de-sac without touching the ocular surface, face or eyelashes. The patients were surveyed about the usefulness of the eye drop aid. Although the aid was designed to require minimal grip force, we measured the force needed to dispense a single drop for five commonly used clinical eye drops.
resultsEighty-eight patients were included (51 men and 37 women, mean age: 67.3 ± 13.4 years). The success rate in the seated position without the eye drop aid was 71.6%, and this rate decreased with increasing age; with the eye drop aid, the success rate improved significantly to 97.8%. The success rate in the supine position without the aid (86.4%) was significantly better than that in the seated position, and the eye drop aid increased the success rate to 97.8%. The eye drop aid reduced the squeeze force required to instill eye drops (reduction of 10.3%-53.5%) for all types of eye drops.
conclusionEven though the patients were accustomed to using glaucoma eye drops, 28.4% of the patients were not able to instill eye drops properly. The eye drop aid significantly improved the success rate of eye drop instillation, especially when the eye drops were administered while the patients were seated.
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.