Topical Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Corneal Abrasions: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 Trials were included regardless of language or whether they were unpublished or published.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 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 | 0.041 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".