Challenges and Pitfalls in Clinical Trials of Treatments for Dry Eye
Abstract
Clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of therapy for dry eye disease are challenging because of the nature of the disease, the multiple palliative methods used by patients to control their symptoms, and the potential limitations of the techniques available to evaluate therapeutic outcomes. This review identifies some of the pitfalls encountered in recent clinical trials in dry eye disease. The peculiarities of dry eye disease with respect to symptoms, signs, and patho- physiological changes are discussed. Potential problems that apply to all clinical trials, including patient selection, randomization in small populations, and assessment of the placebo effect, are presented with respect to dry eye clinical trials. Considerations regarding study design address inclusion/exclusion criteria and selection of outcome measures. Special attention is given to methods of symptom analysis, techniques of staining of the ocular surface, and grading systems for surface staining. Alternative methods to the standard clinical trial are mentioned to place them in perspective for overall evaluation of dry eye disease therapy. Finally, caveats are provided to encourage investigators to vigorously conduct future clinical trials in dry eye therapy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The placebo effect in this trial was substantial.
“As in other clinical trials of treatments for dry eye disease, the placebo effect was substantial.13,14”
From n−3 Fatty Acid Supplementation for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease (2018) · cites this paper as [13]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
n−3 Fatty Acid Supplementation for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease
The Dry Eye Assessment and Management Study Research Group (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1709691 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
- Authors
- Foulks, G. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Foulks, Gary N.
- Venue
- The Ocular Surface
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 20-30
- ISSN
- 1542-0124 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976640360
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Ocular Surface (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ocular Surface and Contact Lens
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Salivary Gland Disorders and Functions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
- Keywords
- dry eye, clinical trial design, patient selection, placebo effect, symptom assessment, ocular surface staining, outcome measures, alternative trial designs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review