MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782936914 · doi:10.1111/aos.13675

Conservative therapy for chalazia: is it really effective?

2018· article· en· W2782936914 on OpenAlexaffabout
Albert Y. Wu, Kalla A. Gervasio, Kellie Gergoudis, Chen Wei, James H. Oestreicher, John T. Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Cancer InstituteResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsTobramycinMedicineDexamethasonePopulationRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineGastroenterologySurgeryAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the within-treatment efficacy of hot compresses (HC), HC plus tobramycin (Tobrex) and HC plus tobramycin/dexamethasone (Tobradex) for chalazia treatment. METHODS: Design: Multicentre, randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01230593). SETTING: Two clinical sites in New York and two clinical sites in Ontario. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 149 patients with one or more chalazia on separate eyelids randomly assigned to receive HC (n = 50), HC plus tobramycin (n = 50) or HC plus tobramycin/dexamethasone (n = 49). INTERVENTION: 4-6 weeks of assigned treatment. Patients were measured for chalazion horizontal width and surveyed for pain and treatment satisfaction levels. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was complete resolution (100% size reduction). Secondary outcomes were size change in millimetres and patient reported pre- and post-treatment pain and satisfaction levels. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, complete resolution occurred in 36 (18%) lesions total, 13 (21%) treated with HC, 12 (16%) with HC plus tobramycin and 11 (18%) with HC plus tobramycin/dexamethasone, with no significant difference between them (p = .78). Individually by paired t-test, there were statistically significant post-treatment mean size differences: HC 1.20 mm (p < 0.001), HC plus tobramycin 1.69 mm (p < .001) and HC plus tobramycin/dexamethasone 1.54 mm (p < 0.001), but no significant difference between them (p = .61). Lesions that completely resolved had a statistically significant lower pretreatment duration (1.5 months) compared to lesions that did not completely resolve (2.2 months) (p = .04). CONCLUSION: Hot compresses (HC) alone or in combination with tobramycin or tobramycin/dexamethasone drops and ointment are all effective first-line treatment options for chalazia. However, physicians may consider moving directly to the use of more invasive therapies, such as incision and curettage or steroid injections, for chalazia that have been present for more than 2 months, as older lesions are less likely to resolve with conservative therapies alone.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.290 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207