↓ Skip to main content

Autologous serum eye drops for dry eye

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Autologous serum eye drops for dry eye
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009327.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qing Pan, Adla Angelina, Michael Marrone, Walter J Stark, Esen K Akpek

Abstract

Theoretically, autologous serum eye drops (AS) offer a potential advantage over traditional therapies on the assumption that AS not only serve as a lacrimal substitute to provide lubrication but contain other biochemical components that allow them to mimic natural tears more closely. Application of AS has gained popularity as second-line therapy for patients with dry eye. Published studies on this subject indicate that autologous serum could be an effective treatment for dry eye. We conducted this review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AS given alone or in combination with artificial tears as compared with artificial tears alone, saline, placebo, or no treatment for adults with dry eye. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2016), Embase (January 1980 to July 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to 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 also searched the Science Citation Index Expanded database (December 2016) and reference lists of included studies. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 5 July 2016. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared AS versus artificial tears for treatment of adults with dry eye. Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports of potentially eligible trials. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias and characteristics of included trials. We contacted investigators to ask for missing data. For both primary and secondary outcomes, we reported mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis owing to differences in outcome assessments across trials. We identified five eligible RCTs (92 participants) that compared AS versus artificial tears or saline in individuals with dry eye of various origins (Sjögren's syndrome-related dry eye, non-Sjögren's syndrome dry eye, and postoperative dry eye induced by laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)). We assessed the certainty of evidence as low or very low because of lack of reporting of quantitative data for most outcomes and unclear or high risk of bias among trials. We judged most risk of bias domains to have unclear risk in two trials owing to insufficient reporting of trial characteristics, and we considered one trial to have high risk of bias for most domains. We judged the remaining two trials to have low risk of bias; however, these trials used a cross-over design and did not report data in a way that could be used to compare outcomes between treatment groups appropriately. Incomplete outcome reporting and heterogeneity among outcomes and follow-up periods prevented inclusion of these trials in a summary meta-analysis.Three trials compared AS with artificial tears; however, only one trial reported quantitative data for analysis. Low-certainty evidence from one trial suggested that AS might provide some improvement in participant-reported symptoms compared with artificial tears after two weeks of treatment; the mean difference in mean change in symptom score measured on a visual analogue scale (range 0 to 100, with higher scores representing worse symptoms) was -12.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -20.16 to -3.84; 20 participants). This same trial found mixed results with respect to ocular surface outcomes; the mean difference in mean change in scores between AS and artificial tears was -0.9 (95% CI -1.47 to -0.33; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) for fluorescein staining and -2.2 (95% CI -2.73 to -1.67; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) for Rose Bengal staining. Both staining scales range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating worse results. The mean change in tear film break-up time was 2.00 seconds longer (95% CI 0.99 to 3.01; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the AS group than in the artificial tears group. Investigators reported no clinically meaningful differences in Schirmer's test scores between groups (mean difference -0.40 mm, 95% CI -2.91 to 2.11; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of these three trials reported tear hyperosmolarity and adverse events.Two trials compared AS versus saline; however, only one trial reported quantitative data for analysis of only one outcome (Rose Bengal staining). Trial investigators of the two studies reported no differences in symptom scores, fluorescein staining scores, tear film break-up times, or Schirmer's test scores between groups at two to four weeks' follow-up. Very low-certainty evidence from one trial suggested that AS might provide some improvement in Rose Bengal staining scores compared with saline after four weeks of treatment; the mean difference in Rose Bengal staining score (range from 0 to 9, with higher scores showing worse results) was -0.60 (95% CI -1.11 to -0.09; 35 participants). Neither trial reported tear hyperosmolarity outcomes. One trial reported adverse events; two of 12 participants had signs of conjunctivitis with negative culture that did resolve. Overall, investigators reported inconsistency in possible benefits of AS for improving participant-reported symptoms and other objective clinical measures. There might be some benefit in symptoms with AS compared with artificial tears in the short-term, but we found no evidence of an effect after two weeks of treatment. Well-planned, large, high-quality RCTs are warranted to examine participants with dry eye of different severities by using standardized questionnaires to measure participant-reported outcomes, as well as objective clinical tests and objective biomarkers to assess the benefit of AS therapy for dry eye.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 115 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 19 16%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Master 18 15%
Other 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 11%
Other 35 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 47%
Unspecified 26 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 17 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#665,444
of 13,386,593 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,133
of 10,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,759
of 257,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,386,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 257,967 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.