Cited by 32Ocular Surface and Contact LensFatty Acid Research and HealthRetinal Diseases and Treatments

Effect of Oral Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation on Contrast Sensitivity in Patients With Moderate Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Prospective Placebo-Controlled Study

Malhotra, Chintan, Singh, Swati, Chakma, Partha, Jain, Arun K.·2015·Cornea

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of oral supplementation with omega-3 (ω-3) fatty acids (FAs) in improving contrast sensitivity (CS) of patients with moderate meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). METHODS: In this prospective study, 60 patients with moderate MGD were allocated alternately to treatment and control groups. Both groups received warm compresses, lid massage, and artificial tear substitutes. The treatment group also received oral supplements of 1.2 g ω-3 FAs per day. All parameters were recorded at baseline and at 12 weeks and included Ocular Surface Disease Index scores, CS testing at 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd), tear break-up time, Schirmer test I without anesthesia, corneal and conjunctival staining scores, and meibum quality and expressibility. RESULTS: At the end of 12 weeks, significant improvement in CS was seen in the treatment group in 7 of the 8 testing conditions (3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd photopic and 6, 12, and 18 cpd mesopic), whereas in the placebo group, significant improvement was seen only in 3 of the 8 testing conditions (3 cpd photopic, 6 and 18 cpd mesopic). Ocular Surface Disease Index, tear break-up time, ocular surface staining, and meibum quality and expressibility improved significantly in both groups, but more so in the treatment group. Schirmer scores showed no significant improvement in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral supplementation with ω-3 FAs significantly improved CS under both photopic and mesopic testing conditions in patien…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ico.0000000000000446

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Most previous randomized, placebo-controlled trials of n-3 fatty acids for dry eye disease showed significantly greater improvement in symptoms or in at least one sign in the n-3 group than in the placebo group.

    “Most of these trials showed significantly greater improvement in symptoms or in at least one of several signs of dry eye disease in the n–3 fatty acid group than in the placebo group.15,18–22,24,26”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malhotra, C., Singh, S., Chakma, P., & Jain, A. K.
Affiliations
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (IN)
Venue
Cornea
Published
2015-06
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
637-643
ISSN
0277-3740 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2317502247
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
3.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cornea (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ocular Surface and Contact Lens
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Keywords
omega-3 fatty acids, meibomian gland dysfunction, contrast sensitivity, oral supplementation, dry eye, tear film stability, meibum quality, ocular surface disease, mesopic vision
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Adult, Aged, Eyelid Diseases, Female, Humans, Male, Meibomian Glands, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Visual Acuity, Contrast Sensitivity, Fatty Acids, Omega-3, Color Vision, Mesopic Vision

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