Efficacy and Safety of Topical Diquafosol Ophthalmic Solution for Treatment of Dry Eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical diquafosol ophthalmic solution for treatment of dry eye. METHODS: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were identified to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical administration of diquafosol to patients with dry eyes. Data evaluation was based on endpoints including Schirmer test, tear film break-up time, ocular surface staining score, subjective symptom score, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 8 RCTs involving 1516 patients were selected based on the prespecified criteria. Significant improvement of Schirmer test values and tear film break-up time were reported in 40% (2 of 5) and 80% (4 of 5) studies, respectively. Ocular surface staining scores significantly decreased in 100% (fluorescein corneal staining, 6 of 6; Rose Bengal corneal and conjunctival staining, 4 of 4) RCTs. Symptoms significantly improved in 75% (6 of 8) RCTs in patients with dry eyes. No severe adverse events were reported with the concentration of diquafosol from 0.5% to 5%. Heterogeneity in study design prevented meta-analysis from statistical integration and summarization. CONCLUSIONS: Topical diquafosol seems to be a safe therapeutic option for the treatment of dry eye. The high variability of the selected RCTs compromised the strength of evidence and limits the determination of efficacy. However, the topical administration of diquafosol seems to be beneficial in improving the integrity of the epithelial cell layer of the ocular surface and mucin secretion in patients with dry eyes. This review indicates a need for standardized criteria and methods for evaluation to assess the efficacy of diquafosol in the future clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".