We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
Should we patch corneal abrasions? A meta-analysis.
Journal of Family Practice 1998 October
BACKGROUND: Eye patching is commonly recommended for treating corneal abrasions. This advice seems based more on anecdotes or disease-oriented evidence theorizing that there is faster healing or less pain when the eye is patched. This meta-analysis was performed to determine if eye patching is a useful treatment for corneal abrasions.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of both MEDLINE (1966 to 1997) and Science Citation Index to locate relevant articles. We reviewed the bibliographies of included studies, and ophthalmology and primary care texts. Local ophthalmologists and authors were contacted to identify any unpublished data. Controlled trials that evaluated eye patching compared with no patching in patients older than 6 years with uncomplicated corneal abrasions were considered. The outcomes of interest were healing rates and degree of pain.
RESULTS: Seven trials were identified for inclusion, of which five could be statistically combined. Healing rates were similar in the two groups. The summary ratios (95% confidence interval) of healing rates in the patch group as compared with the no-patch group were 0.87 (0.68 to 1.13) and 0.90 (0.75 to 1.10) at days 1 and 2, respectively. Six studies evaluated pain: four found no difference and two favored not patching. No differences in complication rates were noted between the patched and nonpatched groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Eye patching was not found to improve healing rates or reduce pain in patients with corneal abrasions. Given the theoretical harm of loss of binocular vision and possible increased pain, we recommend the route of harmless nonintervention in treating corneal abrasions.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of both MEDLINE (1966 to 1997) and Science Citation Index to locate relevant articles. We reviewed the bibliographies of included studies, and ophthalmology and primary care texts. Local ophthalmologists and authors were contacted to identify any unpublished data. Controlled trials that evaluated eye patching compared with no patching in patients older than 6 years with uncomplicated corneal abrasions were considered. The outcomes of interest were healing rates and degree of pain.
RESULTS: Seven trials were identified for inclusion, of which five could be statistically combined. Healing rates were similar in the two groups. The summary ratios (95% confidence interval) of healing rates in the patch group as compared with the no-patch group were 0.87 (0.68 to 1.13) and 0.90 (0.75 to 1.10) at days 1 and 2, respectively. Six studies evaluated pain: four found no difference and two favored not patching. No differences in complication rates were noted between the patched and nonpatched groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Eye patching was not found to improve healing rates or reduce pain in patients with corneal abrasions. Given the theoretical harm of loss of binocular vision and possible increased pain, we recommend the route of harmless nonintervention in treating corneal abrasions.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app