ArticleTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology
Evaluation of the usability, efficacy and safety of a novel ophthalmic eye drop dispenser designed to deliver preservative-free artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye disease.
Article in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. 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
Background: Ocular conditions are often managed with eye drops but conventional dispensers may be difficult to use for some. Objectives: A novel device has been designed to overcome limitations of traditional eye drop dispensers, and its ability to deliver artificial tears was tested. Design: A single centre, prospective study of 24 patients with Dry Eye Disease (DED). Methods: Regular users of artificial tears tested the novel dispenser over 4 weeks, evaluating: DED symptoms with the Dry Eye Questionnaire 5; ocular parameters including the non-invasive tear breakup time (NI-TBUT), the Schirmer I test and surface staining; and tear meniscus parameters (height, depth and area measured by AS-OCT before and after application). The patients used questionnaires to evaluate the usability and their satisfaction with the dispenser, and report any adverse reactions. Results: Tear stability improved after 4 weeks using the dispenser, with a significantly higher NI-TBUT-first (6.48 ±3.65 s) and NI-TBUT-average (7.45 ±3.59 s) relative to baseline (4.52 ±3.18 and 5.95 ±3.39, respectively: p=0.001), coupled to milder ocular surface staining (0.54 ±0.65) relative to baseline (1.08 ±0.77: p=0.042). Artificial tear instillation using the dispenser significantly improved tear meniscus parameters, which persisted for ≥5 min, and the lower mean DEQ-5 score after 4 weeks (9.79 ±3.23) relative to baseline (11.20 ±3.37: p=0.006) indicated DED symptoms also improved. The patients rated the new dispenser as very easy (58%) or easy (33.3%) to use, and many felt very comfortable using it. Patients were satisfied (54.2%) or very satisfied (16.7%) with the new dispenser, 87.5% preferring it over conventional systems (p<0.001) and with a desire to continue using it. No adverse reactions were reported. Conclusion: The Beat the Blink™ dispenser was feasible, easy to use, well tolerated, and highly accepted over 4 weeks. Clinical signs and patient-reported symptoms improved during use with preservative-free artificial tears.
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.