ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Assessment and management of dry eye disease in the UK: standardising reality-based best practice.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessment and management of dry eye disease (DED) in the UK is increasingly taking place outside of specialist ophthalmology settings. While comprehensive, evidence-based international guidance exists, much of it does not reflect the realities of practice in the UK. A panel of experts was brought together to identify areas of consensus on assessment, management, and appropriate referral of DED in the UK National Health Service (NHS).
methodsA questionnaire was circulated to a panel consisting of 15 optometrists, ophthalmologists, and corneal specialists with experience and expertise in DED. Based on their responses, consensus statements were developed and underwent two rounds of voting, in which respondents indicated to what extent they agreed with each statement. A core steering panel of seven experts discussed the results and provided further context for the statements.
resultsStrong or very strong consensus was reached for 57/62 statements. Statements with very strong consensus included guidance on the minimum symptoms and signs to be assessed on initial presentation and simple guidance for grading the severity of the disease. Statements regarding initial treatment were divided by setting (primary and secondary care), and a strong or very strong consensus was reached on 17/20 statements relating to treatment options in these settings. Statements specific to referral included approximate target timelines, where possible, as well as guidance on key supporting information to help improve the efficiency of patient care.
conclusionsThis consensus provides a UK-focused resource to support consistent and effective care for patients with DED within the NHS.
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.