MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050254499 · doi:10.1197/j.aem.2004.10.026

Topical Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Corneal Abrasions: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

2005· review· en· W2050254499 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa A. Calder

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEBlindingMeta-analysisAdverse effectRandomizationClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in traumatic corneal abrasions. METHODS: This was a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (1966-2004), EMBASE (1980-2004), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews (first quarter 2004). The structured search strategy included a RCT filter and the terms "cornea," "wounds and injuries," "trauma," "corneal diseases," "eye injuries," "anti-inflammatory agents, nonsteroidal" and specific trade names of topical NSAIDs. In addition, four journals in ophthalmology and emergency medicine were hand searched. Two authors independently reviewed citations from the literature searches. To be included, studies had to be RCTs evaluating topical NSAIDs in traumatic corneal abrasions. Trials were included regardless of language or whether they were unpublished or published. Exclusion criteria were corneal ulcers, nonrandomized studies, animal studies, or perioperative setting. Outcomes were pain scale scores at 24 hours and adverse effects. Two independent reviewers assessed four trial quality components: randomization, double blinding, reporting of withdrawals, and concealment of allocation. Weighted mean difference, using a random effects model, was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 200 citations identified, 11 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Eight trials were identified from the MEDLINE search, two from the EMBASE search, and one from conference proceedings. Seven trials enrolled fewer than 100 patients, and more than half of the studies were conducted in Europe. Five trials reported suitable data for analysis. The overall weighted mean difference for 459 patients was a reduction in pain by 1.30 points (95% confidence interval = -1.56 to -1.03) on the pain scale. Five of the trials met criteria for good quality. Transient stinging was a commonly noted adverse effect. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs are effective analgesics for traumatic corneal abrasions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0370.020
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.258
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207