Trial reportEye (London, England)2026
Association between lid margin collarettes and dry eye disease severity in the Dry Eye Assessment and Management (DREAM) study.
Trial report in Eye (London, England), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesLid margin collarettes are a distinct clinical finding and their association with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) and dry eye symptoms and signs remains uncertain. We leverage the large cohort of subjects in the Dry Eye Assessment and Management (DREAM) study data to elucidate collarettes' impact on dry eye disease (DED). SUBJECTS/
methodsWe performed secondary analysis of DREAM study data, a multicentre, double-blinded clinical trial evaluating omega-3 supplementation in patients with moderate-to-severe DED. DED symptoms (Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI] and Ocular Discomfort) and signs (conjunctival staining, corneal staining, tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer test, MGD grade) were compared by collarette presence and severity. Data from all visits (baseline, months 3, 6, 12) were assessed and adjusted for demographics and baseline comorbidities.
resultsOf 1070 eyes at baseline, 65.3% had no collarettes, 28.0% had 1-5, and 6.6% had 6-20. Over the 1 year period of the study, 67% of eyes had no change in collarette severity, while 19% had increased severity and 14% had decreased severity. Collarettes were more common in Whites (82.1% vs 69.9%, p = 0.001), non-Hispanics (92.3% vs 83.2%, p = 0.006), and those with facial rosacea (25.0% vs 17.7%, p = 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed collarettes were associated with increased corneal staining (5.06 vs 4.59, p = 0.01), decreased TBUT (3.24 vs 3.54 s, p = 0.01), decreased Schirmer test (7.92 vs 8.63, p = 0.04), more severe eyelid erythema (18.6% vs 12.2%, p < 0.001), and higher composite DED sign severity (0.51 vs 0.49, p = 0.03). However, they were not associated with conjunctival staining, MGD grade, or DED symptoms (p ≥ 0.30). Similar findings were observed in comparisons of collarette severity. Subjects with collarettes had lower tear levels of IL-1β (p = 0.04), IL-10 (p = 0.02), and INF-γ (p = 0.001).
conclusionsCollarettes were common in patients with moderate-to-severe DED, and most do not progress over time. Although they were associated with worse ocular surface signs, notably eyelid erythema, no association was found with dry eye symptoms. Our results will help physicians counsel and guide the approach to treating dry eye patients with collarettes, and generate pilot data for tear film biomarker identification.
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.