ReviewBeyoglu eye journal2025
Efficacy and Safety of Topical Insulin Eye Drops for Corneal Epithelial Defects: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Assessment.
Review in Beyoglu eye journal, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of topical insulin eye drops (TIED) in treating corneal epithelial defects (CED). Methods: We registered the protocol in PROSPERO (CRD420251051879). A systematic literature search on PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar until May 2025 was done to identify controlled comparative studies. Outcomes of interest include time to complete re-epithelialization, re-epithelialization rate, treatment failure, recurrence, and adverse events. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence for each result using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment. Results: Seven studies involving 238 patients were included in the analysis. TIED significantly shortened re-epithelialization time (mean difference [MD] -1.20 days [-1.71--0.69], p<0.0001) and accelerated the healing rate (MD +0.26 mm Conclusion: TIED may speed corneal healing, cut failures and recurrences, and is well-tolerated and inexpensive. Robust randomized controlled trials are still needed to nail down the optimal dosing, long-term safety, and its role in CED management.
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.