SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of topical therapies for ocular involvement in Sjögren's syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of topical ocular therapies for Sjögren's syndrome-related dry eye disease. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception to April 29, 2026. Randomized controlled trials of topical ocular therapies were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using RoB 2.0. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted in Stata 17.0. Treatment ranking was estimated using SUCRA. Results: Twelve RCTs were included. For ocular staining score, platelet-rich plasma eye drops showed a favorable effect compared with control (SMD -6.96 [95% CI -9.76, -4.16]), and autologous serum also demonstrated a favorable effect. For tear break-up time, autologous serum and platelet-rich plasma showed relatively favorable improvements compared with control (MD 3.90 [95% CI 2.24, 5.56] and MD 3.85 [95% CI 1.48, 6.22], respectively). For Schirmer test, cyclosporine A was associated with improved tear secretion compared with control (MD 5.29 [95% CI 3.80, 6.78]). For Ocular Surface Disease Index, cyclosporine A plus diquafosol sodium showed improvement compared with control (MD -2.40 [95% CI -3.21, -1.59]). Tacrolimus was associated with a higher risk of adverse events than control (OR 2.12 [95% CI 1.01, 4.42]). The certainty of evidence was generally low to moderate, and these findings should be interpreted cautiously because of sparse networks, limited direct comparisons, and uncertainty in treatment ranking. Conclusion: Topical ocular therapies showed outcome-specific advantages. Platelet-rich plasma, autologous serum, and cyclosporine A may benefit ocular surface damage, tear film stability, and tear secretion, respectively. However, sparse networks, local inconsistency, and incomplete safety reporting warrant cautious interpretation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261379380.
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.