ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Topical 5-fluorouracil 1% versus surgical removal as a primary treatment modality for ocular surface squamous neoplasia: a comparison of recurrences and side effects.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthesis and Evaluation of Carbon Black-Containing Hydrogels for the Adsorption of 5-Fluorouracil.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Establishment of a nomogram model to predict malignant risk in patients with ocular surface squamous neoplasia and ocular surface squamous epithelial tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 1% eye drops versus surgical removal as a primary treatment modality for ocular surface squamous neoplasia (OSSN).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 11 patients who received 5-FU 1% (5-FU group) and 14 patients who received surgical removal (surgery group) as a primary therapy for OSSN in an ophthalmic hospital from 2018 to 2023. The primary outcome measure was the comparative incidence of OSSN recurrence between the two therapeutic modalities. The secondary outcome was the frequency of side effects with each therapy.
resultsNo significant differences were found in demographic characteristics, with comparable mean ages (5-FU group: 58.6 ± 22.7 vs. surgery group: 63.1 ± 14.4 years, p = 0.55) and gender distributions (male: 81.8% vs. 78.6%, p = 1.00). The recurrence rate was 18.2% in the 5-FU group versus 14.3% in the surgery group (p > 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference in the recurrence rate between the 5-FU and surgery groups. Patients were treated a median of 3 cycles (range 1-9) of topical 5-FU eye drops in the 5-FU group. Treatment-related ocular symptoms were reported in 45.5% (5/11) of patients in the 5-FU group, while a 57.1% (8/14) incidence of side effects in the surgical group. The mean follow-up duration for the 5-FU group was 28.4 ± 14.8 months, while that for the surgery group was 36.4 ± 20.3 months. The side effects of the two groups of patients were similar, mainly including redness, irritation, pain, and so on. Limbal stem cell deficiency, symblepharon, and systemic symptoms were not observed in either the 5-FU or surgery groups.
conclusionsBoth 5-FU and surgical removal are effective and present a good security profile as primary therapies for OSSN. The two treatment modalities have no significant difference in the frequency of side effects or the time interval to recurrence.
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.