↓ Skip to main content

Patching for corneal abrasion

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 blog
32 tweeters
3 Facebook pages
3 Wikipedia pages


23 Dimensions

Readers on

165 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Patching for corneal abrasion
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004764.pub3
Pubmed ID

Chris HL Lim, Angus Turner, Blanche X Lim


Published audits have demonstrated that corneal abrasions are a common presenting eye complaint. Eye patches are often recommended for treating corneal abrasions despite the lack of evidence for their use. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effects of the eye patch when used to treat corneal abrasions. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of patching for corneal abrasion on healing and pain relief. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2016), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey) (January 1995 to May 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of included studies, unpublished 'grey' literature and conference proceedings and contacted pharmaceutical companies for details of unpublished trials. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared patching the eye with no patching to treat simple corneal abrasions. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Investigators were contacted for further information regarding the quality of trials. The primary outcome was healing at 24, 48 and 72 hours while secondary outcomes included measures of pain, quality of life and adverse effects. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 12 trials which randomised a total of 1080 participants in the review. Four trials were conducted in the United Kingdom, another four in the United States of America, two in Canada, one in Brazil and one in Switzerland. Seven trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains and one trial was judged to be low risk of bias in all domains. The rest were a combination of low risk or unclear.People receiving a patch may be less likely to have a healed corneal abrasion after 24 hours compared to those not receiving a patch (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.00, 7 trials, 531 participants, low certainty evidence). Similar numbers of people in the patch and no-patch groups were healed by 48 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02, 6 trials, 497 participants, moderate certainty evidence) and 72 hours (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05, 4 trials, 430 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Participants receiving a patch took slightly longer to heal but the difference was small and probably unimportant (mean difference (MD) 0.14 days longer, 95% CI 0 to 0.27 days longer, 6 trials, 642 participants, moderate certainty evidence).Ten trials reported pain scores. Most studies reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). It was not possible to pool the data because it was skewed. In general, similar pain ratings were seen between patch and no-patch groups. Data from two trials reporting presence or absence of pain at 24 hours was inconclusive. There was a higher risk of reported pain in the patch group but wide confidence intervals compatible with higher or lower risk of pain (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65, 2 trials, 193 participants, low certainty evidence). Five trials compared analgesic use between the patch and no-patch groups. Data from three of these trials could be combined and suggested similar analgesic use in the patch and no-patch groups but with some uncertainty (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32, 256 participants, low certainty evidence). Frequently reported symptoms included photophobia, lacrimation, foreign body sensation and blurred vision but there was little evidence to suggest any difference in these symptoms in people with or without a patch.Activities of daily living (ADL) were assessed in one study involving children. There was little difference in ADL with the exception of walking which was reported to be more difficult with a patch on: VAS 1.7 cm (SD 2.1) versus 0.3 cm (SD 0.7).Complication rates were low across studies and there is uncertainty about the relative effects of patching or not patching with respect to these (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 12.05, 8 trials, 660 participants, low certainty evidence). Three trials reporting rates of compliance to treatment found that 22% of participants did not have their eye patches during follow-up. No-patch groups generally received more adjuvant treatment with antibiotics or cycloplegics, or both, than the patch group. There were limited data on the effect of patching on abrasions greater than 10mm(2) in size. Trials included in this review suggest that treating simple corneal abrasions with a patch may not improve healing or reduce pain. It must be noted that, in these trials, participants who did not receive a patch were more likely to receive additional treatment, for example with antibiotics. Overall we judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to low. Further research should focus on designing and implementing better quality trials and examining the effectiveness of patching for large abrasions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 163 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Psychology 13 8%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 35 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,457,801 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 271,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,457,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.