Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41453934›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Effects of artificial tears on ocular surface symptoms and visual task performance in digital device users.

Sara Ortiz-Toquero, Irene Sanchez, Raul Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sara Ortiz-ToqueroOptometry Research Group, IOBA Eye Institute, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, 47011, Spain. sara.ortiz@uva.es.
Irene SanchezOptometry Research Group, IOBA Eye Institute, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, 47011, Spain.
Raul MartinOptometry Research Group, IOBA Eye Institute, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, 47011, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This prospective, single-arm study investigates the effects of preservative-free artificial tears on ocular symptoms, visual task performance, and tear film stability in visual display terminal (VDT) users. Thirty VDT users with digital eye strain and dryness symptoms were prescribed preservative-free artificial tears four times daily for one month. Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Computer-Vision Symptom Scale (CVSS17) questionnaires were collected at four visits (screening, initial, one week and one month). Blink rate and eye fixations during six simple computer tasks and out-loud reading speed were determined before and after computer use. Noninvasive tear film break-up time (NIBUT) and tear meniscus height (TMH) were also recorded. VDT users' symptoms [CVSS17 (35.70 ± 3.72 to 27.27 ± 4.43; P < 0.01); OSDI (19.99 ± 3.20 to 10.52 ± 6.04; P < 0.01)] improved after artificial tear use at final visit. Out-loud reading speed did not significantly change, although a slight improvement in the normalized value was observed after computer use between the initial (0.99 ± 0.13) and final (1.02 ± 0.15; P < 0.01) visits. No significant differences between visits were found in the blink rate, eye fixations, NIBUT or TMH. Preservative-free artificial tears effectively reduce subjective symptoms in VDT users, although this relief does not translate into measurable improvements in visual task performance or tear film metrics.

Indexed as

Dry Eye SyndromesLubricant Eye DropsAdultBlinkingComputer TerminalsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesTask Performance and AnalysisTearsYoung AdultLubricant Eye DropsArtificial tearsComputer vision syndromeDigital eye strainReading speed

Identifiers

PMID41453934
PMCPMC12780262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.