ArticleOphthalmic research2026
Corneal Fluorescein Staining in FDA-Reviewed Dry Eye Registrational Clinical Trials: Evidence of Limited Endpoint Responsiveness.
Article in Ophthalmic research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
introductionCorneal fluorescein (FL) staining is the most widely used efficacy endpoint in dry eye disease (DED) registrational trials, yet dye diffusion and variable readout timing can blur punctate staining, reducing the precision and consistency of grading. We assessed the performance of FL staining as an efficacy endpoint by analyzing endpoint success across FDA-reviewed DED trials and evaluated whether a standardized, diffusion-resistant dye could provide an alternative quantitative measure of corneal staining.
methodsWe conducted a synthesis of FDA-reviewed DED registrational clinical trials through April 2025 to determine the proportion of trials that met the corneal FL staining efficacy endpoint. Clinical relevance was assessed using a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of ≥3 units on the 0-15 National Eye Institute (NEI) scale. In a clinical cohort of 50 DED patients (97 eyes), total corneal staining was compared after sequential instillation of 5 µL of 2% FL (readout ∼2.5 min) and 1% lissamine green (LG) (readout ≤30 s).
resultsAmong 20 FDA-reviewed registrational trials that prespecified corneal FL staining as an efficacy endpoint, 10 (50%) failed to meet this endpoint. Of the seven trials in which FL staining served as a primary or co-primary endpoint, only one achieved MCID for corneal staining. Across all trials meeting the endpoint, treatment-vehicle differences were small (mean additional reduction 0.4-1.2 units; Cohen's d < 0.5), indicating that FL staining yielded uniformly small effect sizes. In the clinical cohort, 1% LG produced corneal staining that was strongly associated with 2% FL for mild (ρ = 0.99), moderate (ρ = 0.93), and severe (ρ = 0.69) disease (p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed that while the mean bias was negligible, the width of the 95% limits of agreement (-1.26 to 0.85) suggests the two corneal staining dyes are not fully interchangeable at the individual-measurement level.
conclusionsCorneal FL staining demonstrates limited responsiveness as an efficacy endpoint in DED registrational trials. Because 1% LG provides corneal staining strongly associated with 2% FL while preserving discrete punctate detail and allowing standardized, early readouts, it may represent a suitable alternative vital dye for future DED efficacy and safety assessments.
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.