![]() ![]() I understand it may not be useful to try to measure symptoms in each eye individually when they’re receiving slightly different treatments. we don’t know how any of these people felt. Why? Because so many people with dry eye are told to do warm compresses whether or not they’ve been diagnosed with a form of MGD that is likely to benefit. Patient selection was on the basis of “dry eye symptoms”… in other words, as far as I can tell, a bunch of random people whose eye disease state we don’t know, which is a perfectly realistic simulation for a study of this kind. “Investigator-masked, randomised, contralateral-eye trial”… when does anybody apply that kind of design rigor to a study of a cheap, non-pharmaceutical, home remedy? More please, and longer please! It engages with nuances of technique for eyelid care, which tends to totally get ignored. It’s about home remedies, as opposed to expensive in-office procedures. By the way, there is SO much to like about the study concept Don’t put yourselves through the nuisance of it without a sound reason. If neither apply, then I would class you with the 20 random people with dry eye symptoms in this study who, it seems, had little to gain. To my mind, there are only two rational reasons to do either heat or go the whole hog with heat & squeeze:īecause it really and truly makes you feel better, and/orīecause an eye doctor who actually knows what they’re doing told you to, explaining exactly why and how it will help YOU with your specifically diagnosed eyelid condition, and explaining what method they want you to use and why. Just reinforced what I’ve always believed: That applying warm compresses, much less lid massage, to random (heterogeneous) eyes with dry eye symptoms is a waste of time. Now is that, or is it not, the polite research way to say “(cough, choke)… No comment!” improvement with manual massage) and then “marginally” improve on it (Eyepeace), and that’s the most exciting news you have to report. So you take something clinically insignificant albetit statistically significant (i.e. Results: Painfully and unsurprisingly unimpressive across the board.ĥ out of 7 clinical tests (visual acuity, tear meniscus height, conjunctival hyperaemia, ocular surface staining, and meibomian gland dropout) showed no improvement, regardless of method.ġ out of 7 (tear film stability) showed only short-lived improvement and didn’t vary based on ‘massage’ method.ġ out of 7 (tear film lipid layer thickness)… well, gosh. Clinical signs are measured before and after. Then they massage one eyelid manually and massage the other eyelid with “EyePeace”, a rubbery eyelid squeezy-thingy. So 20 people use a same warm compress (same brand) for 10 minutes. A study of home-based compresses & lid massage
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |