ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Efficacy and Safety of Reproxalap 0.25% Ophthalmic Solution in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Dry eye disease (DED) is an ocular surface disorder characterized by tear-film instability, inflammation, and symptoms that can impair visual function and quality of life. Reproxalap is a topical reactive aldehyde species (RASP) inhibitor. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of reproxalap 0.25% ophthalmic solution vs vehicle in adults with DED. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL/Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through June 20, 2026. The PROSPERO-registered review (CRD420261425460) included randomized trials and public trial-registry results records with extractable 0.25% reproxalap-versus-vehicle data. Outcomes included Schirmer test change and response (at least 10 mm improvement), instillation-site irritation, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and discontinuation. Risk of bias and certainty were assessed using RoB 2 and GRADE. Results: Six eligible sources involving 2230 randomized participants were included. Reproxalap improved Schirmer test score (mean difference [MD], 2.34 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 3.22; P < 0.0001; I Conclusions: Reproxalap 0.25% demonstrated rapid objective tear-production improvements vs vehicle, though routine clinical recommendation must be weighed against frequent, transient instillation-site irritation. No treatment-related serious ocular adverse events were reported. Certainty ranged from low to very low due to reliance on registry-only data, trial program endpoint restructuring, eye-level denominators, and small study numbers.
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.