Observational studyInternational ophthalmology2026
Mucus fishing syndrome: clinical spectrum and update on its multifactorial pathogenic mechanisms.
Observational study in International ophthalmology, 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.
- Mucus Fishing Syndrome: Case Series and a Narrative Review of Literature.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the clinical spectrum of mucus-fishing syndrome (MFS), an often-overlooked cause of dry eye disease, marked by a vicious cycle of self-induced ocular surface irritation and mucus overproduction.
methodsRetrospective observational case series study.
resultsA total of 29 patients with MFS were included. Most patients were female (89.6%) with a mean age of 54.3 ± 18.5 years. Psychological and psychiatric comorbidities were reported in 31.0% of the patients, with anxiety and depression being the most common. Patients primarily used their fingernails (82.7%) for filament removal, along with other methods including cotton swabs, paper tissues, and needles. Common symptoms included an imminent feeling of mucus removal (100%), foreign body sensation (96.5%), tearing (51.7%), and a red eye (41.3%). Treatment focused on patient education, ocular surface management, and adjuvant therapies, achieving favorable responses in 55.1% of the patients within the first month.
conclusionMFS is an insidious cause of dry eye syndrome that may be underdiagnosed because of patient embarrassment and limited clinician awareness. Effective management requires patient education to avoid filament removal and to address the underlying ocular and mental health conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41575696What 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.