ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Chronic Ocular Surface Pain: An Optometrist and Ophthalmologist Survey.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Chronic ocular pain is associated with smaller selective hippocampal subfield in highly symptomatic patients.The journal of pain · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic ocular surface pain (COSP) is defined as ocular pain that is perceived to originate from the ocular surface and persists for more than 3 months. Clear epidemiological data on COSP prevalence are lacking.
methodsIn 2025, a total of 100 eye care providers were surveyed, including 50 optometrists and 50 ophthalmologists. The survey aimed to assess the percentage of their weekly patient volume diagnosed with COSP, the diagnostic methods used, contributing etiologies, and current management strategies. Additionally, practitioners identified key indicators of successful treatment and attributes they believed would have the greatest impact on patient outcomes. Lastly, they rated their satisfaction with current therapeutic options.
resultsAn estimated 33% of optometrists' patients and 29% of ophthalmologists' patients had COSP. Of those diagnosed with dry eye disease (DED), 63% also had COSP. Providers managed COSP with over-the-counter (OTC) artificial tears (97% of respondents), OTC gels and ointments (90%), hot compresses (86%), and prescription therapies indicated for DED (30-88%), while a minority routinely used amniotic membranes (37%), serum tears (26%), intense pulsed light (18%), and LipiFlow (16%). The proportions of providers who were satisfied or very satisfied with these therapies were as follows: 64% for amniotic membranes and serum tears, 63% for device-based therapies, 40% for prescription medications, and 21% for OTC drops, ointments, and hot compresses.
conclusionsThis survey provides initial insight into the prevalence of COSP among patients in US eye care clinics, along with perspectives on managing this condition from both optometrists and ophthalmologists. The most common therapeutic strategies for COSP (OTC artificial tears, gels, and ointments) were associated with the lowest levels of provider satisfaction. COSP and dry eye disease are distinct but closely linked conditions. These results demonstrate an unmet need for new treatment options to address COSP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.