Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08534-5
Title: Sodium Hyaluronate in the Treatment of Dry Eye Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Authors: Ang, B.C.H
Sng, J.J
Wang, P.X.H
Htoon, H.M 
Tong, L.H.T
Keywords: artificial tear
hyaluronic acid
viscosupplement
clinical trial (topic)
comparative study
dry eye
human
meta analysis
treatment outcome
Clinical Trials as Topic
Dry Eye Syndromes
Humans
Hyaluronic Acid
Lubricant Eye Drops
Treatment Outcome
Viscosupplements
Issue Date: 2017
Citation: Ang, B.C.H, Sng, J.J, Wang, P.X.H, Htoon, H.M, Tong, L.H.T (2017). Sodium Hyaluronate in the Treatment of Dry Eye Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Scientific Reports 7 (1) : 9013. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08534-5
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares sodium hyaluronate (HY) with non-HY based artificial tears in the treatment of dry eye syndrome. A literature search for clinical trials comparing HY against non-HY preparations was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus databases from inception up to May 2016. Majority of the 18 studies selected for review showed superiority of HY in improving ocular staining and symptoms. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining Schirmer's I (SH) and tear breakup time (TBUT) underwent further meta-analyses with calculation of pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 7 RCTs including 383 eyes randomized to HY and 596 eyes to non-HY preparations underwent meta-analysis for SH. 9 RCTs including 458 eyes randomized to HY and 651 eyes to non-HY preparations underwent meta-analysis for TBUT. By fixed-effects modelling, HY demonstrated greater improvement of SH compared to non-HY preparations (SMD, 0.238; 95% CI, 0.107 to 0.369; p < 0.001). By random-effects modelling, HY demonstrated less improvement of TBUT (SMD, -0.566; 95% CI, -1.099 to -0.0336; p = 0.037). In summary, neither preparation was shown to be consistently superior across all outcome measures. The difference in effect between preparations on SH and TBUT was not clinically significant. © 2017 The Author(s).
Source Title: Scientific Reports
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/178307
ISSN: 20452322
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08534-5
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1038_s41598-017-08534-5.pdf2.26 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

19
checked on Nov 26, 2021

Page view(s)

89
checked on Nov 18, 2021

Download(s)

1
checked on Nov 18, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons