Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Interventions for Dry Eye: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.
McCann, Paul; Kruoch, Zanna; Lopez, Sarah; Malli, Shreya; Qureshi, Riaz; Li, Tianjing.
Afiliação
  • McCann P; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
  • Kruoch Z; College of Optometry, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, Utah.
  • Lopez S; Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco.
  • Malli S; Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco.
  • Qureshi R; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
  • Li T; Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Denver.
JAMA Ophthalmol ; 142(1): 58-74, 2024 Jan 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38127364
ABSTRACT
Importance Dry eye is a common ocular disease that can have substantial morbidity. Systematic reviews provide evidence for dry eye interventions and can be useful for patients, clinicians, and clinical guideline developers. Overviews of reviews use explicit and systematic methods to synthesize findings from multiple systematic reviews, but currently, there are no overviews of systematic reviews investigating interventions for dry eye.

Objective:

To summarize the results of reliable systematic reviews of dry eye interventions and to highlight the evidence gaps identified. Evidence Review We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite database and included reliable systematic reviews evaluating dry eye interventions published from 2016 to 2022. We reported the proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable with reasons for unreliability. Critical and important outcomes from reliable systematic reviews were extracted and verified. Critical outcomes included dry eye-related patient-reported outcome measures. Results were synthesized from reliable systematic reviews to provide summaries of evidence for each intervention. Evidence for each intervention was defined as conclusive or inconclusive depending on whether high-certainty evidence across systematic reviews was available according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria and whether findings reached statistical or clinical significance. Recommendations were made for further research.

Findings:

Within the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite database, 138 potentially relevant systematic reviews were identified, 71 were considered eligible, and 26 (37%) were assessed as reliable. Among reliable systematic reviews, no conclusive evidence was identified for any dry eye intervention. Inconclusive evidence suggested that environmental modifications, dietary modifications, artificial tears and lubricants, punctal occlusion, intense pulsed light therapy, vectored thermal pulsation therapy (Lipiflow), topical corticosteroids, topical cyclosporine A, topical secretagogues, and autologous serum may be effective. Only unreliable systematic reviews evaluated lifitegrast, oral antibiotics, and moisture chamber devices. Conclusions and Relevance This overview of systematic reviews found some evidence that dry eye interventions may be effective, but no conclusive evidence was available. The conduct and reporting of most systematic reviews for dry eye interventions warrant improvement, and reliable systematic reviews are needed to evaluate lifitegrast, oral antibiotics, and moisture chamber devices.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fenilalanina / Síndromes do Olho Seco Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fenilalanina / Síndromes do Olho Seco Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article