↓ Skip to main content

Topical treatments for blepharokeratoconjunctivitis in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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.
Title
Topical treatments for blepharokeratoconjunctivitis in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011965.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael O'Gallagher, Catey Bunce, Melanie Hingorani, Frank Larkin, Stephen Tuft, Annegret Dahlmann-Noor

Abstract

Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids that involves changes of the eyelids, dysfunction of the meibomian glands, and inflammation of the conjunctiva and cornea. Chronic inflammation of the cornea can lead to scarring, vascularisation and opacity. BKC in children can cause significant symptoms including irritation, watering, photophobia and loss of vision from corneal opacity, refractive error or amblyopia.Treatment of BKC is directed towards modification of meibomian gland disease and the bacterial flora of lid margin and conjunctiva, and control of ocular surface inflammation. Although both topical and systemic treatments are used to treat people with BKC, this Cochrane review focuses on topical treatments. To assess and compare data on the efficacy and safety of topical treatments (including antibiotics, steroids, immunosuppressants and lubricants), alone or in combination, for BKC in children from birth to 16 years. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE ( January 1946 to 11 July 2016), Embase (January 1980 to 11 July 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 11 July 2016. We searched the reference lists of identified reports and the Science Citation Index to identify any additional reports of studies that met the inclusion criteria. We searched for randomised controlled trials that involved topical treatments in children up to 16 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of BKC. We planned to include studies that evaluated a single topical medication versus placebo, a combination of treatments versus placebo, and those that compared two or multiple active treatments. We planned to include studies in which participants received additional treatments, such as oral antibiotics, oral anti-inflammatories, warm lid compresses and lid margin cleaning. Two review authors independently screened the results of the literature search (titles and abstracts) to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria of the review and applied standards as expected for Cochrane reviews. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included one study from the USA that met the inclusion criteria. In the study, 137 children aged zero to six years old with blepharoconjunctivitis were randomised to treatment in one of four trial arms (loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin combination, loteprednol etabonate alone, tobramycin alone or placebo) for 15 days, with assessments on days 1, 3, 7 and 15. We judged the study to be at high risk of attrition bias and bias due to selective outcome reporting. The study did not report the number of children with improvement in symptoms nor with total or partial success as measured by changes in clinical symptoms.All children showed a reduction in blepharoconjunctivitis grade score, but there was no evidence of important differences between groups. Visual acuity was not fully reported but the authors stated that there was no change in visual acuity in any of the treatment groups. The study reported ocular and non ocular adverse events but was underpowered to detect differences between the groups. Ocular adverse events were as follows: loteprednol/tobramycin 1/34 (eye pain); loteprednol 4/35 (eye pain, conjunctivitis, eye discharge, eye inflammation); tobramycin 0/34; placebo (vehicle) 0/34. The evidence was limited for all these outcomes and we judged it to be very low certainty.There was no information on clinical signs (aside from grade score), disease progression or quality of life. There is no high-quality evidence of the safety and efficacy of topical treatments for BKC, which resulted in uncertainty about the indications and effectiveness of topical treatment. Clinical trials are required to test efficacy and safety of current and any future treatments. Outcome measures need to be developed which can capture both objective clinical and patient-reported aspects of the condition and treatments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 20%
Student > Master 14 13%
Other 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 21 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Psychology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 27 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,299,727
of 14,509,819 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,871
of 10,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,800
of 350,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#134
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,509,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 350,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.