SynthesisActa ophthalmologica2026
Outcome parameters in studies investigating dry eye disease: A systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Acta ophthalmologica, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of effective therapeutics for dry eye disease (DED) is challenging due to its complex pathophysiology, heterogeneous patient presentation and the significant failure rate of previous clinical development programs. This underlines the importance of the selection of appropriate endpoints for clinical trials. The presented systematic review retrospectively analyzes the endpoints used in controlled clinical trials in studies of DED. Published clinical trials in the field of DED were reviewed from 2000 to 2023 and the used clinical endpoints were recorded by type and frequency of use. All studies that met the primary keyword search across various databases (PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Medline) were imported into Rayyan which was used to facilitate the screening process and support the collaboration between the reviewers. 93 876 studies were found of which 33 908 remained after duplicates were removed. All abstracts were screened for eligibility independently by two reviewers. 355 articles remained for full-text review, of which 194 were included in the present systematic review. The most frequently investigated product was topical medicinal products (88 studies), followed by topical lubricants (57 studies) and nutritional supplements (22 studies). Corneal fluorescein staining (45 studies) and the ocular surface disease index (OSDI; 96 studies) were the most frequently used primary objective and subjective outcome parameters. However, a sustainable number of studies failed to show statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups, despite improvements from baseline. Our findings show that corneal fluorescein staining and OSDI are the most frequently used endpoints in clinical studies, although they frequently are not able to detect differences between the treatment and control groups. Therefore, to enhance the efficiency and reliability of DED clinical trials, a consensus on optimal outcome measures is crucial, and the exploration of novel endpoints should be prioritized. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42022350817.
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.