Trial reportOphthalmology2026
A Small-Volume Topical Ophthalmic Spray for Pupillary Dilation in Children: A Randomized, Masked, Noninferiority Trial.
Trial report in Ophthalmology, 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
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the noninferiority of mydriatic eye drops administered through a commercially available spray (Optejet; Eyenovia, Inc) compared with standard eye drops on pupillary dilation in children.
designProspective, randomized, single-masked clinical trial.
participantsChildren 18 years of age or younger requiring pupillary dilation as part of a scheduled eye examination.
methodsPupillary mydriasis with phenylephrine 2.5% and tropicamide 1% administered via standard eye drops compared with an automated microdosing spray device.
main outcome measuresNoninferiority of change in maximum pupil diameter and change in pupillary constriction percentage 30 minutes after dilation.
resultsOne hundred thirty-four eyes of 67 participants were included in the final analysis, with 67 eyes randomized to eye drops and 67 eyes randomized to spray. Mean ± standard deviation age was 8.8 ± 3.44 years, 60% were male, and 80% of eyes had dark irides. Spherical equivalent refractive error and baseline pupillary characteristics were similar between groups. Maximum pupil diameter was 7.65 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.45-7.85 mm) in the eye drop group and 7.72 mm (95% CI, 7.54-7.90 mm) in the spray group. Change in maximum pupil diameter was 2.15 mm (95% CI, 1.96-2.35 mm) in the eye drop group and 2.48 mm (95% CI, 2.09-2.87 mm) in the spray group. Change in pupillary constriction percentage was -30.29% (95% CI, -33.03% to -27.55%) for eye drops and -32.29% (95% CI, -34.87% to -29.70%) for spray. Compared with eye drops, the spray met noninferiority criteria for maximum pupil diameter and pupillary constriction percentage. Sixty-seven percent of participants preferred spray over eye drops.
conclusionsOur study demonstrated that an ophthalmic spray containing 1% tropicamide and 2.5% phenylephrine was noninferior to traditional eye drops for maximum pupil diameter and pupillary constriction percentage. Further work is needed to characterize the cycloplegic properties of this route of administration. Ophthalmic sprays have the potential to increase the acceptability of pupillary dilation in children while maintaining a similar mydriatic effect as eye drops. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
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.