Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35331686›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of ophthalmology2022

Topical Pharmacologic Interventions Versus Active Control, Placebo, or No Treatment for Epidemic Keratoconjunctivitis: Findings From a Cochrane Systematic Review.

Su-Hsun Liu, Barbara S Hawkins, Mark Ren, Sueko M Ng, Louis Leslie, Genie Han, Irene C Kuo

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Su-Hsun LiuFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S-H.L., S.M.N., L.L.), School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Barbara S HawkinsWilmer Eye Institute (B.S.H., M.R., I.C.K.), Department of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Mark RenWilmer Eye Institute (B.S.H., M.R., I.C.K.), Department of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Sueko M NgFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S-H.L., S.M.N., L.L.), School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Louis LeslieFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S-H.L., S.M.N., L.L.), School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Genie HanDepartment of Epidemiology (G.H.), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Irene C KuoWilmer Eye Institute (B.S.H., M.R., I.C.K.), Department of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. Electronic address: ickuo@jhmi.edu.
Johns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · US

Funding

Maximizing Use of High-Quality Evidence in Eye Care: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US ProjectUG1EY020522 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Tianjing Li · 2017 to 2026
$10.1M
NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo summarize key findings from a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of topical pharmacologic interventions compared with active control or placebo for epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC).

designSystematic review.

methodsWe included randomized controlled trials that compared antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or immune-modulating topical therapies with placebo or an active control. We adhered to Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, risk of bias evaluation, and data synthesis.

resultsTen randomized controlled trials with 892 participants with acute or chronic EKC were included. Eight trials compared interventions with artificial tears or saline (n = 4) or with steroids (n = 4); two 3-arm trials contributed data to both comparisons. Estimates suggested that compared with tears, after povidone-iodine (PVP-I) alone (2 studies, 409 participants) more participants with acute EKC had resolution of symptoms (risk ratio [RR] 1.15 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.07-1.24]) and signs (RR 3.19 [95% CI 2.29-4.45]) within 10 days. In 2 trials comparing treatments with steroid alone or steroid with levofloxacin, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) plus steroid developed subepithelial infiltrates within 21 days (RR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01-0.55]; 69 eyes). No treatment was shown to improve resolution of infiltrates.

conclusionsLow- to very low-level certainty of evidence suggested that PVP-I or PVA-I with steroid may confer some benefit in acute EKC, but imprecision from small sample sizes, the potential risk of bias from inadequate reporting or trial design, and variability in participant selection, outcome measurement, and reporting limit the amount and quality of evidence.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalKeratoconjunctivitisHumansLubricant Eye DropsPovidone-IodineAnti-Infective Agents, LocalLubricant Eye DropsPovidone-Iodine

Identifiers

PMID35331686
PMCPMC9808666
OpenAlexW4220891650

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.