ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparative Performance of Artificial Tear Drops Assessed with Objective Non-Invasive Imaging.
Article 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To perform a comparative analysis of 13 over the counter artificial tear formulations and perflourohexyloctane assessing performance using objective, non-invasive imaging. The data provides a rationale to make better informed therapeutic decisions regarding their use. Patients and Methods: Prospective, sequential study of 13 drop formulations in participants over 18 years of age. Tear meniscus height, non-invasive keratographic break up time, and central lipid layer thickness were measured before and 5 and 15 minutes after drop administration. Outcomes were compared using linear mixed models. Predictors included group (between-subjects), time (within-subjects), and the group by time interaction. Results: One hundred and thirty-seven participants, mean age 67 years (54.3% female), were evaluated. Most drops showed increased tear meniscus height at 5 and 15 minutes compared to baseline. Changes in non-invasive keratographic break up time and lipid layer thickness were more variable. A few artificial tears demonstrated better performance with regards to tear meniscus height, non-invasive keratographic break up time or lipid layer thickness; but no single drop outperformed others across all three measured endpoints. Perflourohexyloctane did not show better performance in any test parameter. Conclusion: The performance of various over-the-counter artificial tears can be determined with non-invasive imaging technologies. Certain drops can outperform others with regard to individual test parameters suggesting that personalization or optimization of therapy may be possible. Both active and inactive ingredients contribute to the efficacy of artificial tears. Further work is needed to determine if differences observed here translate into meaningful clinical differences for dry eye disease treatment. This report highlights the complexity of dry eye disease and the need for ongoing work to find optimal ways to treat the ocular surface.
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.