ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Efficacy of Punctal Occlusion Techniques in Tear Drainage Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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. 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.
- Efficacy of Punctal Occlusion Techniques in Tear Drainage Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [Letter].Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
Introduction: Tear drainage dysfunction, presenting as epiphora or dry eye symptoms, significantly affects quality of life. Punctal occlusion, using temporary or permanent techniques, aims to retain tears and improve ocular surface health. However, the overall efficacy and safety of these techniques remain variably reported across studies. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024607753). A comprehensive search of PubMed, MedLine, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library yielded 1550 studies. After screening and eligibility assessment, 14 studies were included. Data extraction covered study design, plug type, follow-up duration, and clinical outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4. Results: Fourteen studies involving 1537 patients (1155 eyes) were analyzed. Punctal occlusion techniques included silicone, collagen, SmartPlugs, and thermal cautery. Meta-analysis revealed no significant improvements in tear film break-up time (WMD = 0.37; 95% CI: -0.94 to 1.67; p = 0.58), Schirmer scores (WMD = 0.61; 95% CI: -0.96 to 2.18; p = 0.45), or fluorescein staining (WMD = -0.38; 95% CI: -0.92 to 0.16; p = 0.17) compared to controls. However, within group analysis based on follow up period of Schirmer test demonstrated significant improvement (p= 0.01). Reported adverse events were minor and self-limiting. Conclusion: Punctal occlusion techniques offer consistent ocular surface benefits with minimal risks. While current evidence highlights positive clinical outcomes, high-quality randomized controlled trials with standardized metrics are necessary to establish definitive efficacy.
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.