↓ Skip to main content

Punctal occlusion for dry eye syndrome

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Punctal occlusion for dry eye syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006775.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann-Margret Ervin, Andrew Law, Andrew D Pucker

Abstract

Dry eye syndrome is a disorder of the tear film that is associated with symptoms of ocular discomfort. Punctal occlusion is a mechanical treatment that blocks the tear drainage system in order to aid in the preservation of natural tears on the ocular surface. To assess the effects of punctal plugs versus no punctal plugs, different types of punctal plugs, and other interventions for managing dry eye. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 December 2016), Embase.com (1947 to 8 December 2016), PubMed (1948 to 8 December 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 8 December 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com; last searched 18 November 2012 - this resource is now archived), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov; searched 8 December 2016), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en; searched 8 December 2016). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We also searched the Science Citation Index-Expanded database and reference lists of included studies. The evidence was last updated on 8 December 2016 SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of collagen or silicone punctal plugs in symptomatic participants diagnosed with aqueous tear deficiency or dry eye syndrome. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study investigators for additional information when needed. We included 18 trials (711 participants, 1249 eyes) from Austria, Canada, China, Greece, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Turkey, the UK, and the USA in this review. We also identified one ongoing trial. Overall we judged these trials to be at unclear risk of bias because they were poorly reported. We assessed the evidence for eight comparisons.Five trials compared punctal plugs with no punctal plugs (control). Three of these trials employed a sham treatment and two trials observed the control group. Two trials did not report outcome data relevant to this review. There was very low-certainty evidence on symptomatic improvement. The three trials that reported this outcome used different scales to measure symptoms. In all three trials, there was little or no improvement in symptom scores with punctal plugs compared with no punctal plugs. Low-certainty evidence from one trial suggested less ocular surface staining in the punctal plug group compared with the no punctal plug group however this difference was small and possibly clinically unimportant (mean difference (MD) in fluorescein staining score -1.50 points, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.12; eyes = 61). Similarly there was a small difference in tear film stability with people in the punctal plug group having more stability (MD 1.93 seconds more, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.20; eyes = 28, low-certainty evidence). The number of artificial tear applications was lower in the punctal plug group compared with the no punctal plugs group in one trial (MD -2.70 applications, 95% CI -3.11 to -2.29; eyes = 61, low-certainty evidence). One trial with low-certainty evidence reported little or no difference between the groups in Schirmer scores, but did not report any quantitative data on aqueous tear production. Very low-certainty evidence on adverse events suggested that events occurred reasonably frequently in the punctal plug group and included epiphora, itching, tenderness and swelling of lids with mucous discharge, and plug displacement.One trial compared punctal plugs with cyclosporine (20 eyes) and one trial compared punctal plugs with oral pilocarpine (55 eyes). The evidence was judged to be very low-certainty due to a combination of risk of bias and imprecision.Five trials compared punctal plugs with artificial tears. In one of the trials punctal plugs was combined with artificial tears and compared with artificial tears alone. There was very low-certainty evidence on symptomatic improvement. Low-certainty evidence of little or no improvement in ocular surface staining comparing punctal plugs with artificial tears (MD right eye 0.10 points higher, 0.56 lower to 0.76 higher, MD left eye 0.60 points higher, 0.10 to 1.10 higher) and low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in aqueous tear production (MD 0.00 mm/5 min, 0.33 lower to 0.33 higher)Three trials compared punctal plugs in the upper versus the lower puncta, and none of them reported the review outcomes at long-term follow-up. One trial with very low-certainty evidence reported no observed complications, but it was unclear which complications were collected.One trial compared acrylic punctal plugs with silicone punctal plugs and the trial reported outcomes at approximately 11 weeks of follow-up (36 eyes). The evidence was judged to be very low-certainty due to a combination of risk of bias and imprecision.One trial compared intracanalicular punctal plugs with silicone punctal plugs at three months follow-up (57 eyes). The evidence was judged to be very low-certainty due to a combination of risk of bias and imprecision.Finally, two trials with very low-certainty evidence compared collagen punctal plugs versus silicone punctal plugs (98 eyes). The evidence was judged to be very low-certainty due to a combination of risk of bias and imprecision. Although the investigators of the individual trials concluded that punctal plugs are an effective means for treating dry eye signs and symptoms, the evidence in this systematic review suggests that improvements in symptoms and commonly tested dry eye signs are inconclusive. Despite the inclusion of 11 additional trials, the findings of this updated review are consistent with the previous review published in 2010. The type of punctal plug investigated, the type and severity of dry eye being treated, and heterogeneity in trial methodology confounds our ability to make decisive statements regarding the effectiveness of punctal plug use. Although punctal plugs are believed to be relatively safe, their use is commonly associated with epiphora and, less commonly, with inflammatory conditions such as dacryocystitis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Unspecified 11 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 38%
Unspecified 16 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Psychology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 19 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,077,526
of 13,653,201 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,239
of 10,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,290
of 264,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#125
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,653,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 264,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 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 51% of its contemporaries.