scholarly journals Acupuncture Therapy Is More Effective Than Artificial Tears for Dry Eye Syndrome: Evidence Based on a Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Yang ◽  
Zongguo Yang ◽  
Hong Yu ◽  
Hui Song
Keyword(s):  
Acupuncture Therapy ◽  
Dry Eye ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dry Eye Syndrome ◽  
Acupuncture Group ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Artificial Tears ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Fixed And Random Effects ◽  
Better Than

Background. The efficacy of acupuncture in dry eye syndrome patients remains controversial.Methods. Pubmed, Ovid, Cochrane libraries, CNKI, Wanfang, and CQVIP databases were electronically searched until October 1, 2014. Outcomes including tear break-up time (BUT), Schirmer I test (SIT), and cornea fluorescein staining (CFS) were analyzed. A meta-analysis was performed using both fixed- and random-effects models based on heterogeneity across studies.Results. Seven studies were included in this study; 198 and 185 patients were randomly treated with acupuncture and artificial tears, respectively. The overall BUT of patients in acupuncture group was significantly longer than that of the artificial tears group after treatment (P<0.00001). The SIT was significantly higher in the acupuncture group than that in the artificial tears group after treatment (P=0.001). The CFS of patients in acupuncture group was significantly improved compared to that in artificial group (P<0.0001).Conclusions. Acupuncture therapy is effective for the dry eye patients, partly better than artificial tear treatment.

scholarly journals A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid Eye Drops for the Treatment of Dry Eye Syndrome

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 2383
Author(s):  
Yun-Jung Yang ◽  
Won-Young Lee ◽  
Young-jin Kim ◽  
Yeon-pyo Hong
Keyword(s):  
Hyaluronic Acid ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Dry Eye ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Dry Eye Syndrome ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Standard Mean Difference

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is commonly used for treating dry eye syndrome (DES). This meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacies of HA- and non-HA-based eye drops, including saline and conventional artificial tears (ATs), for the treatment of dry eye disease. Eight databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, DBpia, KoreaMed, KMBASE, RISS, KISS) were searched for studies comparing the efficacies of HA- and non-HA-based ATs in patients with DES published up to September 2020. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality and extracted the relevant data. The mean differences of Schirmer’s (SH) test scores, tear breakup times (TBUT), corneal fluorescein staining scores (Oxford scale, 0–4), and ocular surface disease indexes were calculated. The standard mean difference and 95% confidence interval were calculated using a random effect model. Nineteen studies, including 2078 cases, were included. HA eye drops significantly improved tear production compared with non-HA-based eye drops (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.33). In a subgroup analysis, the SH test scores and TBUT values after using HA significantly increased compared to those measured after using saline (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.05, 0.49 and SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.03, 0.52, respectively). Based on these results, HA eye drops may be superior to non-HA eye drops including normal saline and ATs. Further research is needed to assess the efficacies stratified by age, treatment duration, the severity of dry eye, and optimal dosages.

scholarly journals Sodium Hyaluronate in the Treatment of Dry Eye Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Chin Hou Ang ◽  
James Jie Sng ◽  
Priscilla Xin Hui Wang ◽  
Hla Myint Htoon ◽  
Louis Hak Tien Tong
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dry Eye ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sodium Hyaluronate ◽  
Dry Eye Syndrome

scholarly journals Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 3622
Author(s):  
Christian Heise ◽  
Einas Abou Ali ◽  
Dirk Hasenclever ◽  
Francesco Auriemma ◽  
Aiste Gulla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Incomplete Resection ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Fixed And Random Effects

Ampullary lesions (ALs) can be treated by endoscopic (EA) or surgical ampullectomy (SA) or pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, EA carries significant risk of incomplete resection while surgical interventions can lead to substantial morbidity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for R0, adverse-events (AEs) and recurrence between EA, SA and PD. Electronic databases were searched from 1990 to 2018. Outcomes were calculated as pooled means using fixed and random-effects models and the Freeman-Tukey-Double-Arcsine-Proportion-model. We identified 59 independent studies. The pooled R0 rate was 76.6% (71.8–81.4%, I2 = 91.38%) for EA, 96.4% (93.6–99.2%, I2 = 37.8%) for SA and 98.9% (98.0–99.7%, I2 = 0%) for PD. AEs were 24.7% (19.8–29.6%, I2 = 86.4%), 28.3% (19.0–37.7%, I2 = 76.8%) and 44.7% (37.9–51.4%, I2 = 0%), respectively. Recurrences were registered in 13.0% (10.2–15.6%, I2 = 91.3%), 9.4% (4.8–14%, I2 = 57.3%) and 14.2% (9.5–18.9%, I2 = 0%). Differences between proportions were significant in R0 for EA compared to SA (p = 0.007) and PD (p = 0.022). AEs were statistically different only between EA and PD (p = 0.049) and recurrence showed no significance for EA/SA or EA/PD. Our data indicate an increased rate of complete resection in surgical interventions accompanied with a higher risk of complications. However, studies showed various sources of bias, limited quality of data and a significant heterogeneity, particularly in EA studies.

Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial of Autologous Serum Versus Artificial Tears in Dry Eye Syndrome

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 684-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristhian A. Urzua ◽  
Dario H. Vasquez ◽  
Andres Huidobro ◽  
Helio Hernandez ◽  
Jorge Alfaro
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Dry Eye ◽  
Dry Eye Syndrome ◽  
Autologous Serum ◽  
Artificial Tears ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial

scholarly journals A bibliometric analysis of systematic review/meta-analysis on dry eye disease

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yonggang Zhang ◽  
An Ping ◽  
Shuyuan Lyu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dry Eye ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Core Collection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dry Eye Disease ◽  
Eye Disease ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background There was no citation analysis about systematic review/meta-analysis published on dry eye disease (DED). The objective of this study was to identify the citations of systematic review/meta-analysis published on DED and to provide information on the achievement and development of evidence-based dry eye research.Methods Web of Knowledge Core Collection was searched for all systematic review/meta-analysis relevant to DED. The number of citations, authorship, year, journal, country, and institution were analyzed for each study.Results A total of 29 systematic reviews/meta-analyses on DED published between 2009 and 2017 were included. The number of citations ranged from 0 to 63, with a medium of 8 citations. These systematic reviews/meta-analyses were from 10 countries, and 15 of them were from China. They were published in 21 journals. Ocular Surface published most studies (n =4), followed by International Journal of Ophthalmology (n =3). The journal with highest impact factor was Nutrition Reviews (IF=5.291 in 2016).Conclusion The citations of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on DED are still low. Further systematic reviews/meta-analyses are needed for providing more evidence for DED.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Pilocarpine, Cevimeline and Diquafosol Compared to Artificial Tears for the Treatment of Dry Eye: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Gerardo Serrano-Robles ◽  
Ana Karen Pérez-Vázquez ◽  
Alejandro Navas-Pérez ◽  
Enrique O Graue-Hernandez ◽  
Arturo Ramirez-Miranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dry Eye ◽  
Ocular Surface ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Review Author ◽  
Artificial Tears ◽  
Ocular Surface Disease Index

Abstract Background: Dry eye disease (DED) is a condition that affects the ocular surface and affects millions of people around the world. In recent years a stepped scheme has been proposed for the treatment of DED, with the use of an artificial tear being the mainstay of treatment. In this scheme, the use of secretagogues is suggested as part of the treatment for patients with moderate to severe affectation. With this systematic review we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of secretagogues for DED.Methods: Electronic databases will be searched; we will include randomized controlled trials that compare secretagogues and artificial tears. Study inclusion will not be restricted on the basis of language or publication status. We will use Google Translate to assess studies written in languages other than English and Spanish. Identification, evaluation, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias will be conducted by two authors of the review, a third review author will resolve any disagreement. The outcomes will be the ocular surface disease index score, osmolarity and tear film break-up time. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for assessing the risk of bias of the included studies. Based on the heterogeneity of the included studies, we will combine the findings in a meta-analysis using a random versus a fixed effect model. If we deem meta-analysis as inappropriate, we will document the reasons and report findings from the individual studies narratively.Discussion: Based on the evidence obtained we will evaluate the effect of Pilocarpine, Cevimeline and Diquafosol and compare it to artificial tears on multiple outcome measures.This systematic review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of the secretagogues pilocarpine, cevimeline and diquafosol to help clinicians in the decision-making process.Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020218407

Meta-analysis in Sociological Research: Power and Heterogeneity

2019 ◽  
pp. 004912411988247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guangyu Tong ◽  
Guang Guo
Keyword(s):  
Random Effects ◽  
Science Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Sociological Inquiry ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Fixed And Random Effects ◽  
Study Heterogeneity ◽  
Analysis Models

Meta-analysis is a statistical method that combines quantitative findings from previous studies. It has been increasingly used to obtain more credible results in a wide range of scientific fields. Combining the results of relevant studies allows researchers to leverage study similarities while modeling potential sources of between-study heterogeneity. This article provides a review of the core methodologies of meta-analysis that we consider most relevant to sociological research. After developing the foundation of the fixed- and random-effects models of meta-analysis models, this article illustrates the utility of the method with regression coefficients reported from two sets of social science studies. We explain the various steps of the process including constructing the meta-sample from primary studies, estimating the fixed- and random-effects models, analyzing the source of heterogeneity across studies, and assessing publication bias. We conclude with a discussion of steps that could be taken to strengthen the development of meta-analysis in sociological research, which will eventually increase the credibility of sociological inquiry via a knowledge-cumulative process.

Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis.

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry V. Hedges ◽  
Jack L. Vevea
Keyword(s):  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Fixed And Random Effects
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document