ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2026
Tolerability of 0.5% Liposomal Ozonated Oil Versus 0.6% Povidone-Iodine in Antiseptic Prophylaxis for Intravitreal Injections.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis work compares the tolerability of 0.6% povidone-iodine (PI) and 0.5% liposomal ozonated oil (LOZ) as antiseptic prophylaxis in patients undergoing intravitreal injections (IVI), aiming to optimize preventive strategies against injection-related endophthalmitis.
methodsThis multicenter cohort study was conducted at the University Paris Est, Créteil, and the University of Trieste between November 2024 and June 2025. A total of 691 patients with maculopathies (329 in the PI group, 362 in the LOZ group) were enrolled. Patients received either 0.6% PI or 0.5% OZ topical prophylaxis three times daily for 3 days before and after IVI. Clinical tolerability was assessed by slit-lamp examination, grading conjunctival hyperemia, discharge, tarsal papillae, corneal changes, burning, and foreign body sensation (0-4 scale). Patient-reported discomfort was evaluated using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), classified into four categories: 0-10 mm (score 0), 11-40 mm (score 1), 41-70 mm (score 2), and 71-100 mm (score 3). Statistical analyses included generalized linear models adjusted for dry eye and prostaglandin therapy.
resultsLOZ treatment was associated with significantly lower mean scores for hyperemia (0.52 vs. 1.51), discharge (0.15 vs. 0.91), tarsal papillae (0.02 vs. 0.57), corneal changes (0.04 vs. 0.58), burning (0.25 vs. 1.69), and foreign body sensation (0.21 vs. 1.58) compared to 0.6% PI (all p < 0.001). VAS scores confirmed superior tolerability in the LOZ group (mean 0.23 vs. 1.58). No cases of endophthalmitis occurred in either group.
conclusionsLOZ (0.5%) represents an ophthalmic antiseptic that addresses the limitations of traditional povidone-iodine preparations, suggesting it may represent a more patient-friendly prophylactic alternative for IVI.
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.