Evidence mapPaperPMID 37452334Full record

SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2023

The efficacy and safety of varenicline nasal spray for the management of dry eye signs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bader Bashrahil, Nada Taher, Ziyad Alzahrani, Ahmed Alnabihi, Abdulaziz Aldahlawi, Mohammed Alkhathlan, Saeed Alghamdi

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bader BashrahilCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Badrbashrahil@gmail.com.
Nada TaherCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ziyad AlzahraniCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed AlnabihiCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz AldahlawiCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed AlkhathlanCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Saeed AlghamdiCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences · SAKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center · SANational Guard Health Affairs · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDry eye disease (DED) is caused by a persistently unstable tear film leading to ocular discomfort and is treated mainly with tear supplementation. There is emerging evidence that nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonists (e.g., varenicline and simpinicline) nasal sprays are effective for DED. Our systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of varenicline nasal spray (VNS) for DED treatment.

methodsThe Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of VNS versus placebo were included. The efficacy endpoint was the mean change in the anesthetized Schirmer test score (STS), a measure of basal tear production, from baseline. The safety endpoints were serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events (AEs). The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for continuous outcomes, while the risk ratio (RR) was used to demonstrate dichotomous variables. The certainty of the evidence was rated utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials.

resultsThree RCTs (n = 1063) met the eligibility criteria. All RCTs had a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis found a statistically significant increase in the mean STS change from baseline on day 28. The pooled analysis found no significant difference between VNS and placebo in the frequency of SAEs and ocular AEs. However, VNS had a significant effect on developing nasal cavity-related AEs.

conclusionVNS caused a highly significant improvement regarding the efficacy endpoint but caused an increased frequency of some nasal cavity-related AEs (i.e., cough and throat irritation). However, it caused neither SAEs nor ocular AEs. Included studies had a low risk of bias.

Indexed as

Dry Eye SyndromesNasal SpraysHumansVareniclineNasal SpraysVareniclineDry eye diseaseNasal sprayVarenicline

Identifiers

PMID37452334
PMCPMC10347795
OpenAlexW4384342245

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.