ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
International Survey of Current Approaches to the Management of Neuropathic Corneal Pain by Experts.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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.
- Complexity of recognising, diagnosing and managing corneal neuropathic pain.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Misoprostol in Refractory Neuralgic Pain: From Clinical Neurology to an EP-Receptor Hypothesis of Pharmacodynamic Persistence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- International Survey of Current Approaches to the Management of Neuropathic Corneal Pain by Experts.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeuropathic corneal pain (NCP) is a challenging condition with limited consensus on its diagnosis and management. This study aimed to gather global insights from corneal specialists on the causes, investigative approaches, and management strategies for NCP.
methodsA 32-question survey covering demographic, causes, investigations, treatments, and multidisciplinary engagement was sent to 152 invited international corneal specialists; 51 (34%) responded. We explored descriptive statistics and examined how responder characteristics influenced their answers.
resultsThe most reported causes of NCP were chronic ocular surface disease (n = 41; 41%) and post-surgical factors (n = 34; 34%). The most common investigations, routinely performed by respondents, were the anesthetic challenge test, Schirmer's test, and corneal esthesiometry. In vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) was routinely used by 37% (n = 19), with 69% (n = 29) of specialists stating that an abnormal result influenced their management. Ocular surface and pain questionnaires were used by 69% (n = 35), with the Ocular Surface Disease Index being the most popular (n = 25; 31%). Common treatments included artificial tears (n = 48; 94%), serum/plasma-derived tears (n = 41; 80%), topical corticosteroids (n = 34; 67%), and topical cyclosporin (n = 30; 59%). Only 38% (n = 19) felt comfortable independently prescribing systemic pharmacotherapy. A multidisciplinary approach was adopted by 47% (n = 24), with the two most common specialties involved being pain management (n = 30; 37%) and neurology (n = 26, 32%).
conclusionsThis survey provides valuable global insights into the causes, investigations, and management of NCP from the perspective of corneal specialists. These findings support further research and the development of guidelines to address this challenging condition.
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.