ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Evaluating the efficacy and feasibility of manual digital meibomian gland compression in meibomian gland dysfunction.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and clinical feasibility of manual digital meibomian gland compression compared to instrument-assisted mechanical compression in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD).
methodsMedical records of 70 MGD patients treated between January and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Participants were divided into manual (n = 35) and mechanical compression groups (n = 35). Primary outcomes included Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores and ocular surface parameters at 2-week follow-up (14 ± 2 days), and 8-week follow-up (56 ± 2 days). Secondary outcomes assessed manipulation pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS), treatment duration, and learning curve length.
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvements in OSDI scores, gland plugging, Schirmer I test, and non-invasive break-up time (NIBUT) at both follow-ups (all P < 0.05). The manual group demonstrated earlier meibum quality improvements (2-week follow-up and 8-week follow-up, P < 0.05) compared to mechanical group's 8-week follow-up improvement (P = 0.01), along with superior lid margin regularity at 8-week follow-up (P = 0.04). Significant intergroup differences favored manual compression in gland plugging (P = 0.02), meibum quality (P = 0.03), and NIBUT (P < 0.001) at 8-week follow-up. Manual compression consistently yielded lower pain scores (all P < 0.001) and required fewer training cases (13 vs. 20).
conclusionsManual digital compression offers effective MGD management with enhanced patient comfort and faster clinical proficiency compared to mechanical methods. Its demonstrated therapeutic advantages support broader clinical implementation.
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.