ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2026
A Narrative Review on the Diagnosis of Dry Eye Disease: Insights from the Italian Dry Eye Consensus (IDEC) Group.
Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2026. 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.
- Home-based low-level light therapy using a commercial LED mask for dry eye disease.International ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Dry Eye Disease: From Mechanisms to Management and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this manuscript is to report the state-of-the-art advances and consensus proposed by an Italian Dry Eye Consensus Group (IDEC) for the diagnosis of dry eye disease (DED). A targeted review of the literature was carried out, not intended as a meta-analysis or systematic review, but as a selection of authoritative evidence-based guidelines and consensus papers issued by scientific societies or expert panels, which provided the basis for structured group discussion. The diagnostic criteria reported in these publications were organized in tables with a subdivision into levels, from basic to more complex tests, and were discussed in light of both the published data and daily clinical experience. The IDEC consensus highlights a pragmatic, stepwise diagnostic workflow: careful documentation of symptoms (using validated questionnaires where possible), identification of risk factors, slit-lamp assessment with vital stains (fluorescein and lissamine green), and measurement of tear film stability by tear break-up time (TBUT)-or by noninvasive TBUT measurement (NIBUT) where available, and corneal sensitivity-represent the minimum cost-effective core set. A series of second-level targeted tests can then be selectively applied to refine the diagnosis, including corneal sensitivity, osmolarity, meibography, Schirmer I test or meniscometry, and ocular surface imaging. The group also discussed the potential role of all-in-one high-tech devices and digital tools (e.g., smartphone-based applications) as these become more accessible. Grounded in real-life clinical experience, the IDEC consensus offers a pragmatic and cost-effective diagnostic workflow that complements international guidelines and can be readily applied in daily practice.
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.