ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2025
Cyclosporine A in the treatment of dry eye syndrome in patients with Sjögren's disease-a systematic review.
Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 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 objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of cyclosporine A (CsA) in treating dry eye syndrome (DES) among patients with Sjögren's disease (SjD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science on January 30, 2025, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing CsA for SjD-related DES. Studies were included if they evaluated CsA in any concentration, formulation, or mode against placebo or vehicle controls and reported at least 1 of the following: Schirmer test, tear breakup time (TBUT), Rose Bengal staining score, Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), or adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Results: Four RCTs met inclusion criteria. Three of them investigated topical formulations (0.05%-2.0%), while 1 studied oral CsA. Topical CsA was associated with significant improvements in TBUT, Rose Bengal staining, and OSDI scores compared with controls. Schirmer test results were mixed, with 2 of 3 topical CsA studies showing significant improvement. Oral CsA showed no significant benefit in Schirmer test. Adverse effects were mild and consistent with known profiles, with systemic side effects occurring only in the oral CsA study. Two studies had high risk of bias, and 2 had some concerns. Conclusions: Topical CsA appears effective and well-tolerated for treating DES in SjD, particularly in improving tear film stability and ocular surface integrity. Oral CsA remains of uncertain benefit. Further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are warranted.
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.