Observational studyBMC ophthalmology2026
Atopic dermatitis and ocular surface disorders: a United States claims-based cross-sectional study.
Observational study 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo estimate the prevalence of ocular surface disorders (OSDs) by atopic dermatitis (AD) status and evaluate healthcare resource utilization (HRU) among patients with AD.
methodsPatients (all ages) enrolled in the Optum Clinformatics® database were included in this two-part, retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study using administrative claims data. For objective 1, patients with/without AD who had continuous enrollment from July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019, were included; for objective 2, patients with AD who had ≥ 18 months of continuous enrollment any time during April 1, 2016, through December 31, 2018. OSD prevalence was compared between patients with an AD diagnosis vs. those without. HRU was assessed among patients with AD and continuous enrollment for 6 months before and 12 months after AD diagnosis.
resultsA total of 79,761 patients with AD and 11,313,523 without AD were included in objective 1. By AD status, OSD prevalence was higher among patients with vs. those without AD (16.9% vs. 9.5%); by age, it was highest among children aged ≤ 5 years (11.4%). The most common OSD was conjunctivitis (8.7% vs. 3.1% by AD status). Among 325,979 patients with AD in objective 2, there was a mean ± standard deviation of 0.87 ± 3.44 OSD-related claims during a 1-year period. Among those with a ≥ 1 OSD-related claim, the mean number of claims was 4.46 ± 7.05. Patients with vs. those without an OSD during the 6 months before their AD diagnosis had higher all-cause HRU during the following year, mainly pharmacy claims (30.5 ± 41.45 vs. 21.23 ± 32.66) and outpatient visits (32.41 ± 34.50 vs. 21.36 ± 28.59).
conclusionsIn this US claims database study, the proportion of patients with ≥ 1 OSD-related claim was 1.8 times higher among patients with vs. without AD, with considerable OSD-related HRU. The highest rates of OSD were seen in children aged ≤ 5 years.
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.