Cargando…
Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Dry eye disease (DED) is a condition that compromises the ocular surface and affects millions of people around the world. In recent years, a scheme has been proposed for the treatment of DED, with the use of artificial tear being the mainstay of treatment. In this scheme, the use of secr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9148479/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35643581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01979-4 |
_version_ | 1784717042627117056 |
---|---|
author | Serrano-Robles, José Gerardo Pérez Vázquez, Ana Karen Navas, Alejandro Graue-Hernandez, Enrique O. Ramirez-Miranda, Arturo Kahuam-López, Nicolás |
author_facet | Serrano-Robles, José Gerardo Pérez Vázquez, Ana Karen Navas, Alejandro Graue-Hernandez, Enrique O. Ramirez-Miranda, Arturo Kahuam-López, Nicolás |
author_sort | Serrano-Robles, José Gerardo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Dry eye disease (DED) is a condition that compromises the ocular surface and affects millions of people around the world. In recent years, a scheme has been proposed for the treatment of DED, with the use of artificial tear being the mainstay of treatment. In this scheme, the use of secretagogues is suggested as part of the treatment for patients with moderate to severe affectation. With this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of secretagogues for DED. METHODS: Electronic databases will be searched; we will include randomized controlled trials that compare secretagogues and artificial tears. Study inclusion will not be restricted on the basis of language or publication status. We will use Google Translate to assess studies written in languages other than English and Spanish. Identification, evaluation, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias will be conducted by two authors of the review, a third review author will resolve any disagreement. The outcomes will be the ocular surface disease index score, tear film break-up time, Schirmer test score, VRQoL Score, and tear film osmolarity. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for assessing the risk of bias of the included studies. Based on the heterogeneity of the included studies, we will combine the findings in a meta-analysis using a fixed effect model if heterogeneity ≤ 50% or a random effect model if heterogeneity > 50%. If we deem meta-analysis as inappropriate, we will document the reasons and report findings from the individual studies narratively. DISCUSSION: Based on the evidence obtained, we will evaluate the effect of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol and compare it to artificial tears on multiple outcome measures. This systematic review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of the secretagogues pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol to help clinicians in the decision-making process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020218407. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-01979-4. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9148479 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91484792022-05-30 Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review Serrano-Robles, José Gerardo Pérez Vázquez, Ana Karen Navas, Alejandro Graue-Hernandez, Enrique O. Ramirez-Miranda, Arturo Kahuam-López, Nicolás Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: Dry eye disease (DED) is a condition that compromises the ocular surface and affects millions of people around the world. In recent years, a scheme has been proposed for the treatment of DED, with the use of artificial tear being the mainstay of treatment. In this scheme, the use of secretagogues is suggested as part of the treatment for patients with moderate to severe affectation. With this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of secretagogues for DED. METHODS: Electronic databases will be searched; we will include randomized controlled trials that compare secretagogues and artificial tears. Study inclusion will not be restricted on the basis of language or publication status. We will use Google Translate to assess studies written in languages other than English and Spanish. Identification, evaluation, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias will be conducted by two authors of the review, a third review author will resolve any disagreement. The outcomes will be the ocular surface disease index score, tear film break-up time, Schirmer test score, VRQoL Score, and tear film osmolarity. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for assessing the risk of bias of the included studies. Based on the heterogeneity of the included studies, we will combine the findings in a meta-analysis using a fixed effect model if heterogeneity ≤ 50% or a random effect model if heterogeneity > 50%. If we deem meta-analysis as inappropriate, we will document the reasons and report findings from the individual studies narratively. DISCUSSION: Based on the evidence obtained, we will evaluate the effect of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol and compare it to artificial tears on multiple outcome measures. This systematic review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of the secretagogues pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol to help clinicians in the decision-making process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020218407. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-01979-4. BioMed Central 2022-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9148479/ /pubmed/35643581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01979-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Protocol Serrano-Robles, José Gerardo Pérez Vázquez, Ana Karen Navas, Alejandro Graue-Hernandez, Enrique O. Ramirez-Miranda, Arturo Kahuam-López, Nicolás Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review |
title | Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review |
title_full | Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review |
title_short | Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review |
title_sort | safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review |
topic | Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9148479/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35643581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01979-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT serranoroblesjosegerardo safetyandefficacyofpilocarpinecevimelineanddiquafosolcomparedtoartificialtearsforthetreatmentofdryeyeprotocolforasystematicreview AT perezvazquezanakaren safetyandefficacyofpilocarpinecevimelineanddiquafosolcomparedtoartificialtearsforthetreatmentofdryeyeprotocolforasystematicreview AT navasalejandro safetyandefficacyofpilocarpinecevimelineanddiquafosolcomparedtoartificialtearsforthetreatmentofdryeyeprotocolforasystematicreview AT grauehernandezenriqueo safetyandefficacyofpilocarpinecevimelineanddiquafosolcomparedtoartificialtearsforthetreatmentofdryeyeprotocolforasystematicreview AT ramirezmirandaarturo safetyandefficacyofpilocarpinecevimelineanddiquafosolcomparedtoartificialtearsforthetreatmentofdryeyeprotocolforasystematicreview AT kahuamlopeznicolas safetyandefficacyofpilocarpinecevimelineanddiquafosolcomparedtoartificialtearsforthetreatmentofdryeyeprotocolforasystematicreview |