-
Dental and Medical Problems 2020Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is idiopathic chronic oral pain, associated with depression, anxiety and pain symptoms. The BMS symptoms include a burning sensation in the...
Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is idiopathic chronic oral pain, associated with depression, anxiety and pain symptoms. The BMS symptoms include a burning sensation in the tongue and/or other oral mucosa with no underlying medical or dental reasons. As many BMS patients suffer from psychiatric comorbidities, several psychotropic drugs are included in the management of BMS, reducing the complaint, while managing anxiety, depression and pain disorders. In this review, a search of the published literature regarding the management of BMS was conducted. We discuss the BMS etiology, clinically associated symptoms and available treatment options. The current evidence supports some BMS interventions, including alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), clonazepam, capsaicin, and low-level laser therapy (LLLT); however, there is a lack of robust scientific evidence, and large-scale clinical trials with long follow-up periods are needed to establish the role of these BMS management options. This knowledge could raise the awareness of dentists, psychiatrists and general practitioners about these challenges and the available kinds of treatment to improve multidisciplinary management for better health outcomes.
Topics: Burning Mouth Syndrome; Capsaicin; Clonazepam; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Pain
PubMed: 33113291
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/120991 -
American Journal of Ophthalmology Aug 2023To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of repeated low-intensity red light (RLRL) treatment for childhood myopia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of repeated low-intensity red light (RLRL) treatment for childhood myopia.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang from inception to February 8, 2023. We used the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools to assess the risk of bias and then used a random-effect model to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CIs. The primary outcomes were WMD in spherical equivalent refractive error (SER), WMD in axial length (AL), and WMD in subfoveal choroid thickness (SFChT). Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the sources of heterogeneity based on variation in follow-up and study design. The Egger and Begg tests were used to assess publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was used to verify the stability.
RESULTS
This analysis included 13 studies (8 randomized controlled trials, 3 non-randomized controlled trials, and 2 cohort studies) involving 1857 children and adolescents. Eight studies met the meta-analysis criteria, and the WMD for myopia progression between RLRL and the control group was 0.68 diopters (D) per 6 months (95% CI = 0.38 to 0.97 D; I = 97.7%; P < .001) for SER change; -0.35 mm per 6 months (95% CI = -0.51 to -0.19 mm; I = 98.0%; P < .001) for AL elongation; and 36.04 µm per 6 months (95% CI = 19.61 to 52.48 µm; I = 89.6%; P < .001) for SFChT change.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis shows that RLRL therapy may be effective for delaying the progression of myopia. The evidence is low certainty, and larger and better randomized clinical trials with 2-year follow-ups are needed to improve the existing state of knowledge to inform medical guidelines more comprehensively.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Myopia; Choroid; Phototherapy
PubMed: 37030495
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.03.036 -
Archives of Disease in Childhood Feb 2022To assess the efficacy of oral low-level laser therapy (LLLT) - also known as photobiomodulation - in the reduction of oral mucositis experienced by children and young...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of oral low-level laser therapy (LLLT) - also known as photobiomodulation - in the reduction of oral mucositis experienced by children and young people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.
DESIGN
A systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of oral LLLT for oral mucositis in children with cancer and the safety of oral LLLT in any age with cancer (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews/PROSPERO registration: CRD42018099772). Multiple databases and grey literature were screened. Randomised controlled trials were considered for assessing efficacy, and all studies were considered for assessing safety. Primary outcomes included severity of oral mucositis, oral pain and adverse events. Where results were compatible, meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. A narrative synthesis considered other outcome measures.
RESULTS
14 studies (n>416 children) were included in the narrative synthesis of LLLT efficacy. 5 studies (n=380 children and young people) were included in the meta-analyses. Results demonstrate that LLLT may reduce the severity of oral mucositis and the level of oral pain, but further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm or deny this. There is vast variation in different trial protocols. Insufficient blinding between LLLT or sham therapy/control led to a strong risk of performance bias. 75 studies (encompassing 2712 patients of all ages who had undergone LLLT) demonstrated minor and infrequent adverse reactions, but most studies had significant areas of weakness in quality.
CONCLUSION
LLLT appears to be a safe therapy, but further evidence is needed to assess its efficacy as a prevention or treatment tool for oral mucositis in children with cancer.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Neoplasms; Stomatitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34230010
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-321216 -
Medicine Nov 2019Laser systems are a common treatment choice for onychomycosis. They exert their effects on inhibiting the growth of the fungus by selective photothermolysis but efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Laser systems are a common treatment choice for onychomycosis. They exert their effects on inhibiting the growth of the fungus by selective photothermolysis but efficacy is dependent on the specific type of apparatus used. To systematically review the available published literature on the curative effects and safety of laser treatment for onychomycosis.
METHODS
Databases including PubMed, web of science, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), WanFang Database and VIP were searched systematically to identify relevant articles published up to July 2018. Potentially relevant articles were sourced, assessed against eligibility criteria by 2 researchers independently and data were extracted from included studies. A meta-analysis was performed using R software.
RESULTS
Thirty-five articles involving 1723 patients and 4278 infected nails were included. Meta-analysis of data extracted from these studies revealed that: the overall mycological cure rate was 63.0% (95%CI 0.53-0.73); the mycological cure rate associated with the 1064-nm Nd: YAG laser was 63.0% (95%CI 0.51-0.74); and that of CO2 lasers was 74.0% (95%CI 0.37-0.98). The published data indicate that laser treatment is relatively safe, but can cause tolerable pain and occasionally lead to bleeding after treatment.
CONCLUSION
Laser treatment of onychomycosis is effective and safe. The cumulative cure rate of laser treatment was significantly higher for CO2 lasers than other types of laser. Laser practitioners should be made aware of potential adverse effects such as pain and bleeding.
Topics: Humans; Lasers, Gas; Lasers, Solid-State; Low-Level Light Therapy; Nails; Onychomycosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31770202
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017948 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Mar 2020Any successful endodontic therapy requires elimination of the endodontic biofilms through meticulous root canal disinfection methods. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Any successful endodontic therapy requires elimination of the endodontic biofilms through meticulous root canal disinfection methods. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) are the most common effective irrigants, in removing smear-layer from the coronal and middle thirds of the dental canals but reduced considerably towards the apical one third. In recent years, newly alternative treatment modalities have been proposed, including high-power lasers and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT). Our work was conducted to evalaute the outcome of root canal disinfection in relation to the efficacy of various treatment modalities. Furthermore, every effort was made to present an overview of the aPDT outcomes, as a model for this application, and to propose laser parameters protocol with positive results.
METHODS
The electronic databases PubMed was searched from January 2013- January 2019. Our inclusive criteria based on laser therapy applications, as a model for root canal disinfection. The search terms utilised various combinations as follows: photodynamic therapy or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy or photoactivated disinfection or light activated disinfection or laser activated disinfection or laser therapy, and endodontic.
RESULTS
The results of this systematic review concluded that the effectiveness of aPDT and various laser wavelengths protocols, in removing endodontic biofilms from infected root canals, remains unattainable.
CONCLUSIONS
Study concluded that the combination of aPDT with antimicrobial irrigants could provide a synergetic effect. However, due to the heterogeneity of the selected studies and their limitations, in terms of lack of standardised protocol or discrepancy in the methodology, authors suggest further validated approaches to achieve optimal outcomes.
Topics: Dental Pulp Cavity; Disinfection; Enterococcus faecalis; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Root Canal Irrigants; Root Canal Preparation; Sodium Hypochlorite
PubMed: 31809911
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2019.101611 -
Sexually Transmitted Diseases Jun 2021No clear guidelines are available for the management of pregnant women with condyloma acuminata, a human papillomavirus-associated benign neoplasm that develops in the...
No clear guidelines are available for the management of pregnant women with condyloma acuminata, a human papillomavirus-associated benign neoplasm that develops in the genital tract. We performed a systematic review to gain a better understanding of the management of condyloma acuminata during pregnancy. In this review, we mainly focused on treatments. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science to identify studies on the treatment of condyloma acuminata during pregnancy. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria. The treatment methods described in the literature were laser therapy, cryotherapy, imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, trichloroacetic acid, and local hyperthermia. The most effective treatment remains unclear. Various factors must be considered when deciding how to treat. Based on our assessment of the literature, we recommend cryotherapy as the first-choice treatment and laser therapy as the second-choice treatment. Imiquimod can be considered in cases such as extensive condyloma acuminata that is not easily treated by cryotherapy or laser therapy. In such cases, sufficient informed consent must be obtained from the patient. Cryotherapy, laser therapy, and imiquimod have been administered during all 3 trimesters with no severe adverse effects, but we cautiously recommend reserving laser therapy until the third trimester because of the lower risk of recurrence before delivery. There are still many unclear points regarding the management of condyloma in pregnancy, and further research is needed.
Topics: Condylomata Acuminata; Female; Humans; Imiquimod; Papillomaviridae; Photochemotherapy; Pregnancy; Recurrence
PubMed: 33093288
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001322 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jul 2020To compare the adjunctive effects of lasers or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation alone in untreated periodontitis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adjunctive laser or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation in patients with untreated periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIM
To compare the adjunctive effects of lasers or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation alone in untreated periodontitis patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two focused questions were addressed using the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome criteria as follows: in patients with untreated periodontitis, (a) does laser application provide adjunctive effects on probing pocket depth (PPD) changes compared with non-surgical instrumentation alone? and (b) does application of aPDT provide adjunctive effects on PPD changes compared with non-surgical instrumentation alone? Both randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Results of the meta-analysis are expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Out of 1,202 records, 10 articles for adjunctive laser and 8 for adjunctive aPDT were included. With respect to PPD changes, 1 meta-analysis including 2 articles (total n = 42; split-mouth design) failed to identify a statistically significant difference (WMD = 0.35 mm; 95%CI: -0.04/0.73; p = .08) in favour of adjunctive aPDT (wavelength range 650-700 nm). In terms of adjunctive laser application, a high variability of clinical outcomes at 6 months was noted. Two articles included patient-reported outcomes and 10 reported on the presence/absence of harms/adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence on adjunctive therapy with lasers and aPDT is limited by (a) the low number of controlled studies and (b) the heterogeneity of study designs. Patient-reported benefits remain to be demonstrated.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Scaling; Humans; Lasers; Photochemotherapy; Root Planing
PubMed: 31859395
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13236 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and the other serious complications of severe hyperbilirubinemia in the neonate occur far more frequently in low- and middle-income... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and the other serious complications of severe hyperbilirubinemia in the neonate occur far more frequently in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This is due to several factors that place babies in LMIC at greater risk for hyperbilirubinemia, including increased prevalence of hematologic disorders leading to hemolysis, increased sepsis, less prenatal or postnatal care, and a lack of resources to treat jaundiced babies. Hospitals and clinics face frequent shortages of functioning phototherapy machines and inconsistent access to electricity to run the machines. Sunlight has the potential to treat hyperbilirubinemia: it contains the wavelengths of light that are produced by phototherapy machines. However, it contains harmful ultraviolet light and infrared radiation, and prolonged exposure has the potential to lead to sunburn, skin damage, and hyperthermia or hypothermia.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of sunlight administered alone or with filtering or amplifying devices for the prevention and treatment of clinical jaundice or laboratory-diagnosed hyperbilirubinemia in term and late preterm neonates.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 5), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 2 May 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs. We updated the searches on 1 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs. We excluded crossover RCTs. Included studies must have evaluated sunlight (with or without filters or amplification) for the prevention and treatment of hyperbilirubinemia or jaundice in term or late preterm neonates. Neonates must have been enrolled in the study by one-week postnatal age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were: use of conventional phototherapy, treatment failure requiring exchange transfusion, ABE, chronic bilirubin encephalopathy, and death.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs (1103 infants). All three studies had small sample sizes, were unblinded, and were at high risk of bias. We planned to undertake four comparisons, but only found studies reporting on two. Sunlight with or without filters or amplification compared to no treatment for the prevention and treatment of hyperbilirubinemia in term and late preterm neonates One study of twice-daily sunlight exposure (30 to 60 minutes) compared to no treatment reported the incidence of jaundice may be reduced (risk ratio [RR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.82; risk difference [RD] -0.14, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome [NNTB] 7, 95% CI 5 to 17; 1 study, 482 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and the number of days that an infant was jaundiced may be reduced (mean difference [MD] -2.20 days, 95% CI -2.60 to -1.80; 1 study, 482 infants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data on safety or potential harmful effects of the intervention. The study did not assess use of conventional phototherapy, treatment failure requiring exchange transfusion, ABE, and long-term consequences of hyperbilirubinemia. The study showed that sunlight therapy may reduce rehospitalization rates within seven days of discharge for treatment for hyperbilirubinemia, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.11; RD -0.04, -0.08 to 0.01; 1 study, 482 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Sunlight with or without filters or amplification compared to other sources of phototherapy for the treatment of hyperbilirubinemia in infants with confirmed hyperbilirubinemia Two studies (621 infants) compared the effect of filtered-sunlight exposure to other sources of phototherapy in infants with confirmed hyperbilirubinemia. Filtered-sunlight phototherapy (FSPT) and conventional or intensive electric phototherapy led to a similar number of days of effective treatment (broadly defined as a minimal increase of total serum bilirubin in infants less than 72 hours old and a decrease in total serum bilirubin in infants more than 72 hours old on any day that at least four to five hours of sunlight therapy was available). There may be little or no difference in treatment failure requiring exchange transfusion (typical RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.73; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 2 studies, 621 infants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported ABE, and no infants developed this outcome (RR not estimable; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 1 study, 174 infants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported death as a reason for study withdrawal; no infants were withdrawn due to death (RR not estimable; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 1 study, 447 infants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study assessed long-term outcomes. Possible harms: both studies showed a probable increased risk for hyperthermia (body temperature greater than 37.5 °C) with FSPT (typical RR 4.39, 95% CI 2.98 to 6.47; typical RD 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.36; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome [NNTH] 3, 95% CI 2 to 4; 2 studies, 621 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably no difference in hypothermia (body temperature less than 35.5 °C) (typical RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.03; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 2 studies, 621 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Sunlight may be an effective adjunct to conventional phototherapy in LMIC settings, may allow for rotational use of limited phototherapy machines, and may be preferable to families as it can allow for increased bonding. Filtration of sunlight to block harmful ultraviolet light and frequent temperature checks for babies under sunlight may be warranted for safety. Sunlight may be effective in preventing hyperbilirubinemia in some cases, but these studies have not demonstrated that sunlight alone is effective for the treatment of hyperbilirubinemia given its sporadic availability and the low or very low certainty of the evidence in these studies.
Topics: Bias; Exchange Transfusion, Whole Blood; Heliotherapy; Humans; Hyperbilirubinemia, Neonatal; Hyperthermia; Hypothermia; Incidence; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Jaundice, Neonatal; Patient Readmission; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 34228352
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013277.pub2 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Oct 2019To systematically review the literature and update the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the use of photobiomodulation (PBM), such as laser and other light...
PURPOSE
To systematically review the literature and update the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the use of photobiomodulation (PBM), such as laser and other light therapies, for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) using PubMed and Web of Science. We followed the MASCC methods for systematic review and guidelines development. The rigorously evaluated evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned a level-of-evidence (LoE). Based on the LoE, one of the following guidelines was determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, or No Guideline Possible.
RESULTS
Recommendations are made for the prevention of OM and related pain with PBM therapy in cancer patients treated with one of the following modalities: hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, head and neck (H&N) radiotherapy (without chemotherapy), and H&N radiotherapy with chemotherapy. For each of these modalities, we recommend 1-2 clinically effective protocols; the clinician should adhere to all parameters of the protocol selected. Due to inadequate evidence, currently, No Guideline Possible for treatment of established OM or for management of chemotherapy-related OM. The reported clinical settings were extremely variable, limiting data integration.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence supports the use of specific settings of PBM therapy for the prevention of OM in specific patient populations. Under these circumstances, PBM is recommended for the prevention of OM. The guidelines are subject to continuous update based on new published data.
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Male; Mucositis; Neoplasms; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Stomatitis
PubMed: 31286228
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-04890-2 -
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