MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412736274 · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2025.07.010

Topical pharmacologic treatments for dry eye disease: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4412736274 on OpenAlex
Louis Tong, Zuguo Liu, Afsun Şahin, Koray Gümüş, Elisabeth M. Messmer, José M. Benítez‐del‐Castillo, Marc Labétoulle, Clara C. Chan, Laura M. Periman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Ocular Surface · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAllergan
KeywordsDiseaseMedicineDermatologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Topical pharmacologic treatments for dry eye disease (DED) address different aspects of tear film deficiency by decreasing ocular surface inflammation, stimulating mucin secretion, increasing tear production, or reducing excessive evaporation. This systematic review evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies of topical ophthalmic medications for DED. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched from 1980 to February 2024. For studies meeting inclusion criteria, efficacy outcomes (signs and symptoms of DED) and adverse event data were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 107 publications covering topical prescription medications (anti-inflammatory agents cyclosporine and lifitegrast; mucin secretagogues diquafosol and rebamipide; tear evaporation inhibitor perfluorohexyloctane; tear production stimulator nasal spray varenicline), other commercially available products, and novel agents in development were identified. In RCTs, significant improvements relative to a control group were demonstrated more often for sign endpoints (e.g., corneal staining, Schirmer score) than for symptom endpoints (e.g., eye dryness, ocular discomfort). The evaluated treatments were well tolerated; instillation site reactions were the most commonly reported adverse events. Year-long safety extension studies demonstrated maintenance of efficacy, with no new safety signals identified. Studies differed in design, methodology, control group, and outcomes assessment, making it difficult to compare across products, and head-to-head studies were rare. Several new products are in late-stage development, which will likely lead to additional treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Current topical pharmacologic eye products improved signs, and sometimes symptoms, of DED and were well tolerated. Treatment selection should use a shared decision-making approach that takes DED etiology and patient preferences into account.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.347 · 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