ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Light Discomfort Thresholds in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Active versus Mild Non-Active Thyroid Eye Disease.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To quantitatively assess light sensitivity thresholds and ocular surface parameters in patients with thyroid eye disease (TED) compared to sex- and age-matched patients with dry eye disease (DED) and healthy controls, and to further investigate differences between moderate-to-severe active and mild non-active TED. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional, controlled study included patients with TED, patients with DED, and healthy controls. Light sensitivity was evaluated using the Lumiz 100 device (Essilor International, Paris, France) under three lighting conditions: continuous warm, continuous cold and flashing warm. TED patients were further stratified into moderate-to-severe active and mild non-active subgroups. In addition, ocular surface parameters were assessed using the Keratograph 5M (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). Correlations between light sensitivity thresholds and clinical parameters were analyzed. Results: Out of 93 included patients, 39 had TED (14 moderate-to-severe active, 25 mild non-active), 25 had DED, and 29 were healthy controls. TED patients demonstrated significantly lower total light sensitivity thresholds compared to healthy controls (3.17 ± 0.52 vs 3.47 ± 0.42 log10[lux], p = 0.040) but higher thresholds compared to DED patients (2.71 ± 0.52 log10[lux], p = 0.003). Among TED patients, those with moderate-to-severe active disease exhibited significantly lower light sensitivity thresholds than those with mild non-active disease (2.85 ± 0.48 vs 3.35 ± 0.47 log10[lux], p = 0.004). A significant negative correlation was found between total light sensitivity threshold and ocular discomfort symptoms in both subgroups of TED patients (r =-0.623, p = 0.017 for moderate-to-severe active TED and r = -0.405, p = 0.045 for mild non-active TED, respectively). Conversely, no significant correlation was found between light thresholds and tear film or thyroid function parameters. Conclusion: Light sensitivity represents a significant and quantifiable manifestation of TED, particularly in patients with active disease. Quantitative assessment of light sensitivity might be incorporated into clinical evaluation of TED patients to better characterize disease burden and guide management strategies.
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.