ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Asymmetric mydriasis caused by facial antiperspirant misuse: a case report.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAsymmetric mydriasis, or unequal pupil size, requires careful evaluation to exclude serious neurological conditions. Pharmacologic causes are well-known, but reports have mainly involved prescription antiperspirants for underarm use. This case is novel because it describes, to our knowledge, the first instance of bilateral mydriasis and anisocoria caused by a non-prescription facial antiperspirant. This highlights a new public health concern related to easily accessible consumer products. CASE PRESENTATION: A young female presented with acute, unequally enlarged pupils (right pupil 7.5 mm, left pupil 4.5 mm), light sensitivity, and blurred near vision. Direct light reflex was absent in the right eye and sluggish constriction in the left eye, with no other ocular abnormalities detected on examination. The patient reported applying a facial antiperspirant patch (SWEATROL®) near her eyes the previous night. The patch contains glycopyrrolate, an anticholinergic agent. A diagnosis of pharmacologically-induced anisocoria and mydriasis was made. The patient was advised to stop using the product. All symptoms resolved completely within 48 h without any medical treatment.
conclusionThis case demonstrates that potent anticholinergic agents in over-the-counter facial products can cause significant ocular side effects if used incorrectly. The easy availability of such products online, often without clear safety warnings, increases consumer risk. Eye care practitionersroutinely inquire about the use of topical cosmetic products in patients present ingwith unexplained asymmetric mydriasis. This case highlights the need for improved product labeling and enhanced public education to reduce the risk of similar iatrogenic events.
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.