-
Frontiers in Psychology 2017Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a psychotherapeutic approach that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder...
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a psychotherapeutic approach that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) through several randomized controlled trials (RCT). Solid evidence shows that traumatic events can contribute to the onset of severe mental disorders and can worsen their prognosis. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the most important findings from RCT conducted in the treatment of comorbid traumatic events in psychosis, bipolar disorder, unipolar depression, anxiety disorders, substance use disorders, and chronic back pain. Using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus, we conducted a systematic literature search of RCT studies published up to December 2016 that used EMDR therapy in the mentioned psychiatric conditions. RCT are still scarce in these comorbid conditions but the available evidence suggests that EMDR therapy improves trauma-associated symptoms and has a minor effect on the primary disorders by reaching partial symptomatic improvement. EMDR therapy could be a useful psychotherapy to treat trauma-associated symptoms in patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders. Preliminary evidence also suggests that EMDR therapy might be useful to improve psychotic or affective symptoms and could be an add-on treatment in chronic pain conditions.
PubMed: 29018388
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01668 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for procedural pain relief in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for procedural pain relief in neonates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy, effect of dose, method of administration and safety of sucrose for relieving procedural pain in neonates as assessed by validated composite pain scores, physiological pain indicators (heart rate, respiratory rate, saturation of peripheral oxygen in the blood, transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide (gas exchange measured across the skin - TcpO2, TcpCO2), near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), electroencephalogram (EEG), or behavioural pain indicators (cry duration, proportion of time crying, proportion of time facial actions (e.g. grimace) are present), or a combination of these and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal. We performed electronic and manual literature searches in February 2016 for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 2016). We did not impose language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs in which term or preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days after reaching 40 weeks' postmenstrual age), or both, received sucrose for procedural pain. Control interventions included no treatment, water, glucose, breast milk, breastfeeding, local anaesthetic, pacifier, positioning/containing or acupuncture.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our main outcome measures were composite pain scores (including a combination of behavioural, physiological and contextual indicators). Secondary outcomes included separate physiological and behavioural pain indicators. We reported a mean difference (MD) or weighted MD (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect model for continuous outcome measures. For categorical data we used risk ratio (RR) and risk difference. We assessed heterogeneity by the I(2) test. We assessed the risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventy-four studies enrolling 7049 infants were included. Results from only a few studies could be combined in meta-analyses and for most analyses the GRADE assessments indicated low- or moderate-quality evidence. There was high-quality evidence for the beneficial effect of sucrose (24%) with non-nutritive sucking (pacifier dipped in sucrose) or 0.5 mL of sucrose orally in preterm and term infants: Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) 30 s after heel lance WMD -1.70 (95% CI -2.13 to -1.26; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity); 3 studies, n = 278); PIPP 60 s after heel lance WMD -2.14 (95% CI -3.34 to -0.94; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 studies, n = 164). There was high-quality evidence for the use of 2 mL 24% sucrose prior to venipuncture: PIPP during venipuncture WMD -2.79 (95% CI -3.76 to -1.83; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 groups in 1 study, n = 213); and intramuscular injections: PIPP during intramuscular injection WMD -1.05 (95% CI -1.98 to -0.12; I(2) = 0% (2 groups in 1 study, n = 232). Evidence from studies that could not be included in RevMan-analyses supported these findings. Reported adverse effects were minor and similar in the sucrose and control groups. Sucrose is not effective in reducing pain from circumcision. The effectiveness of sucrose for reducing pain/stress from other interventions such as arterial puncture, subcutaneous injection, insertion of nasogastric or orogastric tubes, bladder catherization, eye examinations and echocardiography examinations are inconclusive. Most trials indicated some benefit of sucrose use but that the evidence for other painful procedures is of lower quality as it is based on few studies of small sample sizes. The effects of sucrose on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are unknown.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Sucrose is effective for reducing procedural pain from single events such as heel lance, venipuncture and intramuscular injection in both preterm and term infants. No serious side effects or harms have been documented with this intervention. We could not identify an optimal dose due to inconsistency in effective sucrose dosage among studies. Further investigation of repeated administration of sucrose in neonates is needed. There is some moderate-quality evidence that sucrose in combination with other non-pharmacological interventions such as non-nutritive sucking is more effective than sucrose alone, but more research of this and sucrose in combination with pharmacological interventions is needed. Sucrose use in extremely preterm, unstable, ventilated (or a combination of these) neonates needs to be addressed. Additional research is needed to determine the minimally effective dose of sucrose during a single painful procedure and the effect of repeated sucrose administration on immediate (pain intensity) and long-term (neurodevelopmental) outcomes.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Pain; Pain Measurement; Punctures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucrose
PubMed: 27420164
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001069.pub5 -
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... Nov 2017Blue-blocking (BB) spectacle lenses, which attenuate short-wavelength light, are being marketed to alleviate eyestrain and discomfort when using digital devices, improve... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Blue-blocking (BB) spectacle lenses, which attenuate short-wavelength light, are being marketed to alleviate eyestrain and discomfort when using digital devices, improve sleep quality and potentially confer protection from retinal phototoxicity. The aim of this review was to investigate the relative benefits and potential harms of these lenses.
METHODS
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), recruiting adults from the general population, which investigated the effect of BB spectacle lenses on visual performance, symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue, changes to macular integrity and subjective sleep quality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinical trial registers, until 30 April 2017. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.
RESULTS
Three studies (with 136 participants) met our inclusion criteria; these had limitations in study design and/or implementation. One study compared the effect of BB lenses with clear lenses on contrast sensitivity (CS) and colour vision (CV) using a pseudo-RCT crossover design; there was no observed difference between lens types (log CS; Mean Difference (MD) = -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01], CV total error score on 100-hue; MD = 1.30 [-7.84, 10.44]). Another study measured critical fusion frequency (CFF), as a proxy for eye fatigue, on wearers of low and high BB lenses, pre- and post- a two-hour computer task. There was no observed difference between low BB and standard lens groups, but there was a less negative change in CFF between the high and low BB groups (MD = 1.81 [0.57, 3.05]). Both studies compared eyestrain symptoms with Likert scales. There was no evidence of inter-group differences for either low BB (MD = 0.00 [-0.22, 0.22]) or high BB lenses (MD = -0.05 [-0.31, 0.21]), nor evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants showing an improvement in symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue. One study reported a small improvement in sleep quality in people with self-reported insomnia after wearing high compared to low-BB lenses (MD = 0.80 [0.17, 1.43]) using a 10-point Likert scale. A study involving normal participants found no observed difference in sleep quality. We found no studies investigating effects on macular structure or function.
CONCLUSIONS
We find a lack of high quality evidence to support using BB spectacle lenses for the general population to improve visual performance or sleep quality, alleviate eye fatigue or conserve macular health.
Topics: Circadian Rhythm; Contrast Sensitivity; Eye Pain; Eyeglasses; Humans; Light; Macula Lutea; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 29044670
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12406 -
Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease 2022To evaluate the effectiveness of any form of physiotherapy intervention for the management of central neuropathic pain (cNeP) due to any underlying cause.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of any form of physiotherapy intervention for the management of central neuropathic pain (cNeP) due to any underlying cause.
METHODS
Multiple databases were searched from inception until August 2021. Randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control condition on pain among people with cNeP were included. Methodological quality and the quality of evidence were assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool, respectively.
RESULTS
The searches yielded 2661 studies, of which 23 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses of trials examining non-invasive neurostimulation revealed significant reductions in pain severity due to spinal cord injury (SCI; standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.07, -0.11), = 0.02) and phantom limb pain (weighted mean difference (WMD): -1.57 (95% CI: -2.85, -0.29), = 0.02). The pooled analyses of trials utilising acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and mirror therapy showed significant reductions in pain severity among individuals with stroke (WMD: -1.46 (95% CI: -1.97, -0.94), < 0.001), multiple sclerosis (SMD: -0.32 (95% CI: -0.57, -0.06), = 0.01), and phantom limb pain (SMD: -0.74 (95% CI: -1.36, -0.11), = 0.02), respectively. Exercise was also found to significantly reduce pain among people with multiple sclerosis (SMD: -1.58 (95% CI: -2.85, -0.30), = 0.02).
CONCLUSION
Evidence supports the use of non-invasive neurostimulation for the treatment of pain secondary to SCI and phantom limb pain. Beneficial pain management outcomes were also identified for acupuncture in stroke, TENS in multiple sclerosis, and mirror therapy in phantom limb pain.
PubMed: 35356293
DOI: 10.1177/20406223221078672 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain May 2019Migraine aura (MA) is a common and disabling neurological condition, characterized by transient visual, and less frequently sensory and dysphasic aura disturbances. MA...
BACKGROUND
Migraine aura (MA) is a common and disabling neurological condition, characterized by transient visual, and less frequently sensory and dysphasic aura disturbances. MA is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disorders and is often clinically difficult to distinguish from other serious neurological disorders such as transient ischemic attacks and epilepsy. Optimal clinical classification of MA symptoms is important for more accurate diagnosis and improved understanding of the pathophysiology of MA through clinical studies.
MAIN BODY
A systematic review of previous prospective and retrospective systematic recordings of visual aura symptoms (VASs) was performed to provide an overview of the different types of visual phenomena occurring during MA and their respective frequencies in patients. We found 11 retrospective studies and three prospective studies systematically describing VASs. The number of different types of VASs reported by patients in the studies ranged from two to 23. The most common were flashes of bright light, "foggy" vision, zigzag lines, scotoma, small bright dots and 'like looking through heat waves or water'.
CONCLUSIONS
We created a comprehensive list of VAS types reported by migraine patients based on all currently available data from clinical studies, which can be used for testing and validation in future studies. We propose that, based on this work, an official list of VAS types should be developed, preferably within the context of the International Classification of Headache Disorders of the International Headache Society.
Topics: Adult; Epilepsy; Female; Hallucinations; Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Male; Migraine with Aura; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vision, Ocular
PubMed: 31146673
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-019-1008-x -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in...
The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in patients receiving surgery under general anesthesia. The Embase, Medline, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2022 for randomized controlled trials The primary outcome was the risk of post-induction hypotension between the two agents, while the secondary outcomes included anesthetic depth, induction efficacy, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), hemodynamic profiles, time to eye opening, extubation time as well as the incidence of injection pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). Meta-analysis of eight studies published from 2020 to 2022 involving 738 patients revealed a significantly lower risk of post-induction hypotension with the use of remimazolam compared to that with propofol [risk ratio (RR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 to 0.75, < 0.0001, I = 12%, five studies, 564 patients]. After anesthetic induction, the anesthetic depth measured by bispectral index (BIS) was lighter in the remimazolam group than that in the propofol group (MD = 9.26, 95% confidence interval: 3.06 to 15.47, = 0.003, I = 94%, five studies, 490 patients). The time to loss of consciousness was also longer in the former compared to the latter (MD = 15.49 s, 95%CI: 6.53 to 24.46, = 0.0007, I = 61%, three studies, 331 patients). However, the use of remimazolam correlated with a lower risk of injection pain (RR = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.16, < 0.0001, I = 0%, three studies, 407 patients) despite comparable efficacy of anesthetic induction (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.06, = 0.57, I = 76%, two studies, 319 patients). Our results demonstrated no difference in time to eye opening, extubation time, and risk of PONV between the two groups. Remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of post-induction hypotension after anesthetic induction compared with propofol with similar recovery characteristics. Further studies are required to support our findings. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Identifier: CRD42022320658.
PubMed: 36814492
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1101728 -
Frontiers in Psychology 2021Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The technique is known to facilitate reprocessing of...
Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The technique is known to facilitate reprocessing of maladaptive memories that are thought to be central to this pathology. Here we investigate if EMDR therapy can be used in other conditions. We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science. We searched for published empirical findings on EMDR, excluding those centred on trauma and PTSD, published up to 2020. The results were classified by psychiatric categories. Ninety articles met our research criteria. A positive effect was reported in numerous pathological situations, namely in addictions, somatoform disorders, sexual dysfunction, eating disorders, disorders of adult personality, mood disorders, reaction to severe stress, anxiety disorders, performance anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), pain, neurodegenerative disorders, mental disorders of childhood and adolescence, and sleep. Some studies reported that EMDR was successful in usually uncooperative (e.g., Dementia) or unproductive cases (e.g., aphasia). Moreover, in some severe medical conditions, when psychological distress was an obstacle, EMDR allowed the continuation of treatment-as-usual. Furthermore, the effects observed in non-pathological situations invite for translational research. Despite a generally positive outlook of EMDR as an alternative treatment option, more methodologically rigorous studies are needed. We discuss the advantages and limitations and possible implications for the hypothesised mechanisms of action.
PubMed: 34616328
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644369 -
Pediatric Research Jan 2024Symptoms related to infant ankyloglossia/tongue-tie may deter mothers from breastfeeding, yet frenotomy is controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Symptoms related to infant ankyloglossia/tongue-tie may deter mothers from breastfeeding, yet frenotomy is controversial.
METHODS
Databases included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from 1961-2023. Controlled trials and cohort studies with validated measures of surgical efficacy for breastfeeding outcomes were eligible. Meta-analyses synthesized data with inverse-variance weighting to determine standardized mean differences (SMD) between pre-/postoperative scores.
RESULTS
Twenty-one of 1568 screened studies were included. Breastfeeding self-efficacy improved significantly post-frenotomy: medium effect after 5-10 days (SMD 0.60 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.71; P < 0.001]), large effect after 1 month (SMD 0.91 [CI: 0.79, 1.04; P < 0.001]). Nipple pain decreased significantly post-frenotomy: large effect after 5-15 days (SMD -1.10 [CI: -1.49, -0.70; P < 0.001]) and 1 month (SMD -1.23 [CI: -1.79, -0.67; P = 0.002]). Frenotomy had a medium effect on infant gastroesophageal reflux severity at 1-week follow-up (SMD -0.63 [CI: -0.95, -0.31; P = 0.008]), with continued improvement at 1 month (SMD -0.41 [CI: -0.78, -0.05; P = 0.04]). From LATCH scores, breastfeeding quality improved after 5-7 days by a large SMD of 1.28 (CI: 0.56, 2.00; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Providers should offer frenotomy to improve outcomes in dyads with ankyloglossia-associated breastfeeding difficulties.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO identifier CRD42022303838 .
IMPACT
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that breastfeeding self-efficacy, maternal pain, infant latch, and infant gastroesophageal reflux significantly improve after frenotomy in mother-infant dyads with breastfeeding difficulties and ankyloglossia. Providers should offer frenotomy to improve breastfeeding outcomes in symptomatic mother-infant dyads who face challenges associated with ankyloglossia.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Ankyloglossia; Breast Feeding; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Lingual Frenum; Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37608056
DOI: 10.1038/s41390-023-02784-y -
Current Clinical Pharmacology 2019Opioid analgesics are commonly used along with propofol during general anesthesia. Due to the dearth of data on the quality of anesthesia achieved with this combination,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Fentanyl, Remifentanil, Sufentanil and Alfentanil in Combination with Propofol for General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Opioid analgesics are commonly used along with propofol during general anesthesia. Due to the dearth of data on the quality of anesthesia achieved with this combination, the present meta-analysis was carried out.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for appropriate studies using a suitable search strategy. Randomized clinical trials comparing the combination of remifentanil/sufentanil/alfentanil with propofol with fentanyl and propofol, were included. The outcome measures were as follows: total propofol dose to achieve the desired general anesthesia; time of onset and duration of general anesthesia; depth of general anesthesia; and recovery time (time for eye-opening and time taken for extubation). Risk of bias was assessed and Forest plots were generated for eligible outcomes. The weighted mean difference [95% confidence intervals] was used as the effect estimate.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 were included in the metaanalysis. Statistically significant differences were observed for remifentanil in comparison to fentanyl when combined with propofol: Propofol dose (in mg) -76.18 [-94.72, -57.64]; time of onset of anesthesia (min) -0.44 [-0.74, -0.15]; time taken for eye-opening (min) -3.95 [-4.8, -3.1]; and time for extubation (min) -3.53 [-4.37, -2.7]. No significant differences were observed for either sufentanil or alfentanil about the dose of propofol required and due to scanty data, pooling of the data could not be attempted for other outcome measures for either sufentanil or alfentanil.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, we found that remifentanil has a statistically significant anesthetic profile than fentanyl when combined with propofol. Scanty evidence for both alfentanil and sufentanil precludes any such confirmation.
Topics: Alfentanil; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Fentanyl; Humans; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil; Sufentanil
PubMed: 30868958
DOI: 10.2174/1567201816666190313160438 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the major cause of evaporative dry eye disease, which is the more prevalent form of dry eye disease. Intense pulsed light (IPL)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the major cause of evaporative dry eye disease, which is the more prevalent form of dry eye disease. Intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy, involving treatment of the skin near the eyelids, has emerged as a potential treatment for MGD.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) for the management dry eye disease resulting from meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase Ovid and three trial registers for eligible clinical trials on 1 August 2019. There were no restrictions on publication status, date or language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effectiveness or safety of IPL for treating MGD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our outcomes of interest were the change from baseline in subjective dry eye symptoms, adverse events, changes to lipid layer thickness, tear break-up time (TBUT), tear osmolarity, eyelid irregularity, eyelid telangiectasia, meibomian gland orifice plugging, meibomian gland dropout, corneal sodium fluorescein staining and conjunctival lissamine green staining. Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, extracted data from eligible RCTs and judged the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We reached consensus on any disagreements by discussion. We summarised the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE Working Group approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs, one from New Zealand, one from Japan and one from China, published between 2015 and 2019. Together, these trials enrolled 114 adults (228 eyes). Two studies used a paired-eye (inter-eye comparison) design to evaluate the effects of a sham (control) IPL treatment relative to an actual IPL treatment. One study randomised individuals to either an IPL intervention combined with meibomian gland expression (MGX), or MGX alone (standard therapy). The study follow-up periods ranged from 45 days to nine months. None of the trials were at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The first authors of two included studies were in receipt of funding from patents or the manufacturers of IPL devices. The funding sources and declaration of interests were not given in the report of the third included trial. All three trials evaluated the effect of IPL on dry eye symptoms, quantified using the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire. Pooling data from two trials that used a paired-eye design, the summary estimate for these studies indicated little to no reduction in dry eye symptoms with IPL relative to a sham intervention (mean difference (MD) -0.33 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.56 to 1.89; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 144 eyes). The other study was not pooled as it had a unit-of-analysis error, but reported a reduction in symptoms in favour of IPL (MD -4.60, 95% CI -6.72 to -2.48; 84 eyes). The body of evidence for this outcome was of very low certainty, so we are uncertain about the effect of IPL on dry eye symptoms. There were no relevant combinable data for any of the other secondary outcomes, thus the effect of IPL on clinical parameters relevant to dry eye disease are currently unclear. For sodium fluorescein TBUT, two studies indicated that there may be an improvement in favour of IPL (MD 2.02 seconds, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.17; MD 2.40 seconds, 95% CI 2.27 to 2.53; 172 eyes total; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IPL on non-invasive tear break-up time (MD 5.51 seconds, 95% CI 0.79 to 10.23; MD 3.20, 95% CI 3.09 to 3.31 seconds; two studies; 140 eyes total; very low-certainty evidence). For tear osmolarity, one study indicated that there may be an improvement in favour of IPL (MD -7.00 mOsmol/L, 95% -12.97 to -1.03; 56 eyes; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IPL on meibomian gland orifice plugging (MD -1.20 clinical units, 95% CI -1.24 to -1.16; 84 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IPL on corneal sodium fluorescein staining. One study reported no evidence of a difference between the IPL and sham intervention arms at three months of follow-up (P = 0.409), and a second study reported data favouring IPL (MD -1.00 units, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.93 units; 172 eyes in total; very low-certainty evidence). We considered the incidence of adverse events at the study endpoint, as a measure of safety. As most trials did not specifically report adverse events, the safety of IPL as a treatment for MGD could also not be determined with any certainty. Very low-certainty results from individual studies suggest some adverse effects that may be experienced by participants, include mild pain and burning, and the potential for partially losing eyelashes (due to clinician error).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review finds a scarcity of RCT evidence relating to the effectiveness and safety of IPL as a treatment for MGD. Whether IPL is of value for modifying the symptoms or signs of evaporative dry eye disease is currently uncertain. Due to a lack of comprehensive reporting of adverse events, the safety profile of IPL in this patient population is also unclear. The current limitations in the evidence base should be considered by clinicians using this intervention to treat MGD, and outlined to individuals potentially undergoing this procedure with the intent of treating dry eye disease. The results of the 14 RCTs currently in progress will be of major importance for establishing a more definitive answer regarding the effectiveness and safety of IPL for treating MGD. We intend to update this review when results from these trials become available.
Topics: Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Intense Pulsed Light Therapy; Meibomian Gland Dysfunction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32182637
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013559