↓ Skip to main content

Over the counter (OTC) artificial tear drops for dry eye syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
Over the counter (OTC) artificial tear drops for dry eye syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009729.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew D Pucker, Sueko M Ng, Jason J Nichols

Abstract

Over the counter (OTC) artificial tears historically have been the first line of treatment for dry eye syndrome and dry eye-related conditions like contact lens discomfort, yet currently we know little regarding the overall efficacy of individual, commercially available artificial tears. This review provides a much needed meta-analytical look at all randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials that have analyzed head-to-head comparisons of OTC artificial tears. To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of OTC artificial tear applications in the treatment of dry eye syndrome compared with another class of OTC artificial tears, no treatment, or placebo. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2015, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) website (www.fda.gov). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 December 2015. We searched reference lists of included trials for any additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. This review includes randomized controlled trials with adult participants who were diagnosed with dry eye, regardless of race and gender. We included trials in which the age of participants was not reported, and clinical trials comparing OTC artificial tears with another class of OTC artificial tears, placebo, or no treatment. This review did not consider head-to-head comparisons of artificial tears with another type of dry-eye therapy. We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened the search results, reviewed full-text copies for eligibility, examined risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data. We summarized all other included trial results in the text. We included 43 randomized controlled trials (3497 participants with dry eye). Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics among the included trials with respect to types of diagnostic criteria, interventions, comparisons, and measurements taken, our ability to perform meta-analyses was limited. The review found that, in general, there was uncertainty whether different OTC artificial tears provide similar relief of signs and symptoms when compared with each other or placebo. Nevertheless, we found that 0.2% polyacrylic acid-based artificial tears were consistently more effective at treating dry eye symptoms than 1.4% polyvinyl alcohol-based artificial tears in two trials assessing this comparison (175 participants). All other included artificial tears produced contradictory between-group results or found no between-group differences. Our review also found that OTC artificial tears may be generally safe, but not without adverse events. Overall, we assessed the quality of evidence as low due to high risks of bias among included trials and poor reporting of outcome measures which were insufficient for quantitative analysis. Furthermore, we identified an additional 18 potentially eligible trials that were reported only in clinical trial registers with no associated results or publications. These trials reportedly enrolled 2079 total participants for whom no data are available. Such lack of reporting of trial results represents a high risk of publication bias. OTC artificial tears may be safe and effective means for treating dry eye syndrome; the literature indicates that the majority of OTC artificial tears may have similar efficacies. This conclusion could be greatly skewed by the inconsistencies in study designs and inconsistencies in reporting trial results. Additional research is therefore needed before we can draw robust conclusions about the effectiveness of individual OTC artificial tear formulations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 152 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 22%
Student > Bachelor 26 17%
Unspecified 25 16%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Other 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 37%
Unspecified 32 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Psychology 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Other 29 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 02 September 2019.
All research outputs
#495,323
of 13,589,056 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,513
of 10,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,126
of 266,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,589,056 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 10,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 266,479 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 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.