-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids which can affect children and adults. BKC involves changes of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids which can affect children and adults. BKC involves changes of the eyelids, dysfunction of the meibomian glands, and inflammation of the conjunctiva and cornea. Chronic inflammation of the cornea can lead to scarring, vascularisation and opacity. BKC in children can cause significant symptoms which include irritation, watering, photophobia and loss of vision. Loss of vision in children with BKC may be due to corneal opacity, refractive error or amblyopia.BKC treatment is directed towards the obstruction of meibomian gland openings, the bacterial flora of lid margin and conjunctiva, and ocular surface inflammation. Dietary modifications that involve increased intake in essential fatty acids (EFAs) may also be beneficial. Both topical and systemic treatments are used; this Cochrane review focuses on systemic treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and compare data on the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments (including antibiotics, nutritional supplements and immunosuppressants), alone or in combination, for BKC in children aged between zero to 16 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 21 April 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials that involved systemic treatments in children aged between zero to 16 years with a clinical diagnosis of BKC. We planned to include studies that evaluated a single systemic medication versus placebo, and studies that compared two or multiple active treatments. We planned to include studies in which participants receive additional treatments, such as topical antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and lubricants, warm lid compresses and lid margin cleaning.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the literature search results (titles and abstracts) to identify studies that possibly met the inclusion criteria of the review. We divided studies into 'definitely include', 'definitely exclude' and 'possibly include' categories. We made a final judgement as to the inclusion or exclusion of studies in the 'possibly include' category after we obtained the full text of each article.
MAIN RESULTS
No report or trial met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review; no randomised controlled trials have been carried out on this topic. There is a lack of standardised outcome measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence from clinical trials regarding the safety and efficacy of systemic treatments for BKC. Trials are required to test efficacy and safety of current and future treatments. Outcome measures need to be developed which can capture both objective clinical and patient-reported aspects of the condition and treatments.
Topics: Adolescent; Blepharitis; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Keratoconjunctivitis
PubMed: 27236587
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011750.pub2 -
The British Journal of Ophthalmology Dec 2007The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of currently available topical drugs for vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) through a meta-analysis of randomised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of currently available topical drugs for vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) through a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Twenty-seven RCTs (n = 2184 eyes) that had evaluated the efficacy of topical drugs for the treatment of VKC were selected according to the set criteria; 10 of these trials were suitable for statistical analysis and were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Articles published up to December 2005 were identified from the following
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Lilacs, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and references from relevant articles. Articles in any language published with an English abstract, were screened, and those selected for inclusion were written in English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese or Spanish. The quality of the trials was assessed by the Delphi list. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA software.
RESULTS
A significant improvement in all signs and symptoms, except photophobia, was observed after topical treatment for active VKC, independent of the type of treatment. Comparison of the efficacy of different drugs was not possible due to a lack of standardised criteria among studies.
CONCLUSION
The currently available topical drugs are effective in treating acute phases of VKC. However, there is a lack of evidence to support the recommendation of one specific type of medication for treating this disorder. There is a need for standard criteria to assess diagnosis and therapy based on severity. There is also a need for RCTs assessing long-term effects of single drugs to control the disease and to prevent complications.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antimitotic Agents; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Mast Cells; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17588996
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.122044 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Aug 2021With the recent increase in popularity of electronic cigarette use in the United States, its harmful effects are not only limited to smoke inhalation, but also to the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
With the recent increase in popularity of electronic cigarette use in the United States, its harmful effects are not only limited to smoke inhalation, but also to the possibility of e-cigarette device malfunction. The purpose of this review is to characterize oromaxillofacial trauma secondary to electronic cigarette device explosion.
METHODS
For this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were searched in October 2019 using the following search terms: e-cigarette burns, e-cigarette injury, and e-cigarette explosions, which yielded 400 studies. Basic science research, animal studies, non-English studies, and reports of non-oromaxillofacial injuries were excluded. Study subject demographics, mechanism of trauma, injury type, treatment, and sequelae were recorded and analyzed.
RESULTS
Of all studies, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 14 case reports and 6 case series, with a total of 21 study subjects. For cases that reported sex, 100% were male (20) with a mean age of 29.5 years. Most common lacerations and/or burns involved the lips (10/21), tongue (8/21), soft palate and/or hard palate (4/21), and nose (5/21). Thirteen subjects underwent surgeries including oral-maxillofacial surgery or dental implants (7/13), bone graft repair (3/13), open reduction and internal fixation for preservation of sinus outflow tracts (2/13), foreign body removal from the cervical spine (1/13), and iridectomy (1/13). Reported complications included bone loss secondary to traumatic fracture, tinnitus and hearing loss, lip paralysis secondary to persistent edema, major depressive disorder/ post-traumatic stress disorder, persistent sinusitis, photophobia, and bilateral axillary and hand contractures.
CONCLUSIONS
Electronic cigarette device malfunction and explosion carries great risk for acute oromaxillofacial trauma that may be disfiguring. With the increasing popularity of electronic cigarette use, clinicians and patients should be advised regarding dangers of electronic cigarette use.
Topics: Adult; Burns; Cervical Vertebrae; Depressive Disorder, Major; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Explosions; Humans; Male
PubMed: 33974919
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2021.03.008 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Dec 2005To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of frovatriptan in acute migraine treatment. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of frovatriptan in acute migraine treatment.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical trials of frovatriptan were systematically identified through electronic searches and historical searches up until February 2005. Studies were included if they were (i) double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trials that evaluated frovatriptan 2.5 mg in acute migraine treatment and (ii) reporting the efficacy data in terms of pain-free, headache response, headache recurrence, or relief of migraine-associated symptoms. Two authors extracted data independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. The efficacy was estimated using risk ratio (RR), risk difference, and number needed to treat together with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Five trials involving a total of 2,866 patients were included. Frovatriptan 2.5 mg was more effective than placebo in rendering patient pain-free (RR 3.70, 95% CI 2.59-5.29, P < 0.0001 at 2 h and 2.67, 95% CI 2.21-3.22, P < 0.0001 at 4 h post-dose). It was also superior to placebo in reducing headache severity. The pooled RR was 1.66 (95% CI 1.48-1.88, P < 0.0001) and 1.83 (95% CI 1.66-2.00, P < 0.0001), respectively, at 2 and 4 h after treatment. In those whose headache was relieved at 4 h, the risk of headache recurrence within 24 h was reduced by 26% with frovatriptan (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.93, P = 0.009). Frovatriptan was also superior to placebo in improving symptoms associated with migraine. At 2 h after dosing, frovatriptan reduced the risk of nausea by 14% (95% CI 6-20%, P = 0.0005), photophobia 17% (95% CI 12-22%, P < 0.0001), and phonophobia 14% (95% CI 17-20%, P < 0.0001). The corresponding numbers at 4 h after dosing were 37% (95% CI 30-43%, P < 0.0001), 34% (95% CI 29-39%, P < 0.0001) and 30% (95% CI 23-36%, P < 0.0001), respectively. Frovatriptan caused more adverse events than did placebo (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.07-1.62, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
The available evidence suggests that frovatriptan is more effective but may cause more adverse events than placebo in the treatment of acute moderate to severe migraine. It is effective in providing pain relief and reducing the risk of recurrence. However, its effectiveness relative to other more established agents needs to be better defined by appropriate head to head trials.
Topics: Carbazoles; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Migraine Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Tryptamines
PubMed: 16336284
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2005.00677.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2012Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Diclofenac is an established analgesic, and new formulations using the potassium or epolamine salts, which can be dissolved in water, have been developed for rapid absorption, which may be beneficial in acute migraine. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 27 September 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using self administered diclofenac to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Five studies (1356 participants) compared oral diclofenac with placebo, and one also compared it with sumatriptan; none combined diclofenac with a self administered antiemetic. Four studies treated attacks with single doses of medication, and two allowed an optional second dose for inadequate response. Only two studies, with three active treatment arms, provided data for pooled analysis of primary outcomes. For single doses of diclofenac potassium 50 mg versus placebo (two studies), the NNTs were 6.2, 8.9, and 9.5 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, and pain-free responses at 24 hours, respectively.Associated symptoms of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, and functional disability were reduced within two hours, and similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.There were insufficient data to evaluate other doses of oral diclofenac, or to compare different formulations or different dosing regimens; only one study compared oral diclofenac with an active comparator (oral sumatriptan 100 mg).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral diclofenac potassium 50 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine, providing relief from pain and associated symptoms, although only a minority of patients experience pain-free responses. Adverse events are mostly mild and transient and occur at the same rate as with placebo.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Analgesics; Antiemetics; Diclofenac; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hyperacusis; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Photophobia; Sumatriptan
PubMed: 22336852
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008783.pub2 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023To comprehensively reassess the efficacy and safety of different concentrations of atropine for retarding myopia progression and seek the most appropriate therapeutic...
To comprehensively reassess the efficacy and safety of different concentrations of atropine for retarding myopia progression and seek the most appropriate therapeutic concentration for clinical practice. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals (VIP) and China National Knowledege Infrastructure (CNKI) from their inception to 23 March 2023, to obtain eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that had atropine in at least one treatment arm and placebo/no intervention in another arm. We evaluated the risk of bias of the RCTs according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration for RCTs and quality of cohort studies by the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale. Weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% confidence interval were calculated for meta-analysis. All data analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3, STATA 12.0 and SPSS 26.0 software. A total of 44 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference (WMD) were 0.73 diopters (D), 0.65 D, 0.35 D per year in refraction progression ( = 14.63, = 86.3%; < 0.001) and -0.26 mm, -0.37 mm, -0.11 mm per year in axial length progression ( = 5.80, = 65.5%; = 0.06) for high (0.5%-1%), moderate (0.1%-0.25%), and low (0.005%-0.05%) dose atropine groups, respectively. Logarithmic dose‒response correlations were found between atropine and their effect on change of refraction, axial length, accommodation and photopic pupil diameter. Through these curves, we found that atropine with concentrations ≤0.05% atropine resulted in a residual value of accommodation of more than 5 D and an increase in pupil diameter no more than 3 mm. Higher doses of atropine resulted in a higher incidence of adverse effects, of which the incidence of photophobia was dose-dependent ( = 0.477, = 0.029). Both the efficacy and risk of adverse events for atropine treatment of myopia were mostly dose dependent. Comprehensively considered the myopia control effect and safety of each dose, 0.05% may be the best concentration of atropine to control myopia progression at present, at which myopia is better controlled and the side effects are tolerable. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, CRD42022377705.
PubMed: 37767401
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1227787 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2010Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers do not seek professional help, relying instead on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers do not seek professional help, relying instead on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce symptoms commonly associated with migraine headaches.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 22 April 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered ibuprofen to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and number needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine studies (4373 participants, 5223 attacks) compared ibuprofen with placebo or other active comparators; none combined ibuprofen with a self-administered antiemetic. All studies treated attacks with single doses of medication. For ibuprofen 400 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (26% versus 12% with placebo), 2-hour headache relief (57% versus 25%) and 24-hour sustained headache relief (45% versus 19%) were 7.2, 3.2 and 4.0, respectively. For ibuprofen 200 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (20% versus 10%) and 2-hour headache relief (52% versus 37%) were 9.7 and 6.3, respectively. The higher dose was significantly better for 2-hour headache relief than the lower dose. Soluble formulations of ibuprofen 400 mg were better than standard tablets for 1-hour, but not 2-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia and functional disability were reduced within 2 hours, and fewer participants used rescue medication with ibuprofen compared with placebo. Similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.Ibuprofen 400 mg did not differ from rofecoxib 25 mg for 2-hour headache relief, 24-hour headache relief or use of rescue medication.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Ibuprofen; Migraine Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 20927770
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008039.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2013This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2010 (Kirthi 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2010 (Kirthi 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 10 March 2010 for the original review and to 31 January 2013 for the update.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-controlled studies, or both, using aspirin to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
No new studies were found for this update. Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.Additional metoclopramide significantly reduced nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antiemetics; Aspirin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Photophobia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sumatriptan; Vomiting
PubMed: 23633350
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008041.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2010Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 10 March 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using aspirin to treat a discrete migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced with aspirin compared with placebo, with additional metoclopramide significantly reducing nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.Fewer participants needed rescue medication with aspirin than with placebo. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antiemetics; Aspirin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Photophobia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sumatriptan; Vomiting
PubMed: 20393963
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008041.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Traumatic eye complaints account for 3% of all hospital emergency department visits. The most common traumatic injury to the eye is blunt trauma, which accounts for 30%... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic eye complaints account for 3% of all hospital emergency department visits. The most common traumatic injury to the eye is blunt trauma, which accounts for 30% of these visits. Blunt trauma frequently leads to traumatic iridocyclitis, thus causing anterior uveitis. Iridocyclitis frequently causes tearing, photophobia, eye pain, and vision loss. These symptoms are a result of the inflammatory processes and ciliary spasms to iris muscles and sphincter. The inflammatory process is usually managed with topical corticosteroids, while the ciliary spasm is blunted by dilating the pupils with topical mydriatic agents, an adjuvant therapy. However, the effectiveness of mydriatic agents has not been quantified in terms of reduction of ocular pain and visual acuity loss.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topical mydriatics as adjunctive therapy to topical corticosteroids for traumatic iridocyclitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2019, issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 12 June 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared topical mydriatic agents in conjunction with topical corticosteroid therapy versus topical corticosteroids alone, in participants with traumatic iridocyclitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JH, MK) independently screened titles and abstracts, then full-text reports, against eligibility criteria. We planned to have two authors independently extract data from included studies. We resolved differences in opinion by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
There were no eligible RCTs that compared the interventions of interest in people with traumatic iridocyclitis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find any evidence from RCTs about the efficacy of topical mydriatic agents as an adjunctive therapy with topical corticosteroids for treating traumatic iridocyclitis. In the absence of these types of studies, we cannot draw any firm conclusions. Controlled trials that compare the combined use of topical mydriatic agents and corticosteroid drops against standard corticosteroid drops alone, in people with traumatic iridocyclitis are required. These may provide evidence about the efficacy and risk of topical mydriatic drops as adjuvant therapy for traumatic iridocyclitis.
PubMed: 35659470
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013260.pub2