Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08534-5
DC FieldValue
dc.titleSodium Hyaluronate in the Treatment of Dry Eye Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
dc.contributor.authorAng, B.C.H
dc.contributor.authorSng, J.J
dc.contributor.authorWang, P.X.H
dc.contributor.authorHtoon, H.M
dc.contributor.authorTong, L.H.T
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-20T09:08:50Z
dc.date.available2020-10-20T09:08:50Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationAng, 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
dc.identifier.issn20452322
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/178307
dc.description.abstractThis 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).
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceUnpaywall 20201031
dc.subjectartificial tear
dc.subjecthyaluronic acid
dc.subjectviscosupplement
dc.subjectclinical trial (topic)
dc.subjectcomparative study
dc.subjectdry eye
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectmeta analysis
dc.subjecttreatment outcome
dc.subjectClinical Trials as Topic
dc.subjectDry Eye Syndromes
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectHyaluronic Acid
dc.subjectLubricant Eye Drops
dc.subjectTreatment Outcome
dc.subjectViscosupplements
dc.typeReview
dc.contributor.departmentDUKE-NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL
dc.description.doi10.1038/s41598-017-08534-5
dc.description.sourcetitleScientific Reports
dc.description.volume7
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.page9013
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show simple 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 Jan 13, 2022

Page view(s)

102
checked on Jan 13, 2022

Download(s)

1
checked on Jan 13, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons