Trial reportMedicine2025
Comparison of the efficacy of intense pulsed light, 0.05% cyclosporine A eye drops, and 3% diquafosol sodium eye drops in the treatment of moderate to severe dry eye: A prospective cohort study.
Trial report in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intense pulsed light as a multi-target intervention paradigm for refractory ocular surface diseases: a review.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2026Review
- Zhangyanming Tablets for Dry Eye Disease: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Clinical Study.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of 0.05% Cyclosporine A and 3% Diquafosol Sodium in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to compare the efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL), 0.05% cyclosporine A (CsA) eye drops, and 3% diquafosol sodium (DQS) eye drops in treating moderate to severe dry eye. A cohort of 180 patients diagnosed with moderate to severe dry eye was enrolled in the Department of Ophthalmology at Quzhou People's Hospital between October 2, 2023, and October 2, 2024. The patients were randomly assigned to 3 treatment groups: IPL, 0.05% CsA, and 3% DQS, with each group consisting of 60 patients. Ocular surface parameters were assessed at 4-week and 12-week intervals after the initiation of treatment. The primary outcome measure was the change in the corneal fluorescein staining score (CFSS), used to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of IPL, 0.05% CsA, and 3% DQS eye drops. The secondary outcomes included the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Schirmer Tear Test 1 (STT1), tear meniscus height (TMH), and tear breakup time, used to evaluate treatment efficacy. At week 4 post-treatment, the CsA, DQS, and IPL groups demonstrated statistically significant differences in average NBUT, OSDI score, TMH, and STT1 score (P < .05). The IPL group achieved the most favorable outcomes, showing the highest NBUT, TMH, and STT1 scores, along with the lowest OSDI score. Although CFSS values varied among the groups, the differences were not statistically significant (P > .05). At week 12 post-treatment, significant differences (P < .05) were observed among the CsA, DQS, and IPL groups across multiple parameters. The IPL group continued to show superior results, with the highest tear film breakup time, TMH, and STT1 scores, as well as the lowest OSDI and CFSS values. IPL, 0.05% CsA, and 3% DQS eye drops are effective in treating moderate to severe dry eye. Notably, IPL shows significant advantages over CsA and DQS, owing to its noninvasive nature, effective clearance of meibomian gland obstruction, and marked improvement in tear film quality.
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.