Eye & contact lens · 2024
Spotlight on Amniotic Membrane Extract Eye Drops: A Review of the Literature.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kilian Raphael, Bonacci Erika, Donner Ruth, Lammer Jan, Rizzo Clara, Crincoli Emanuele, De Ruvo Valentino, Schmidinger Gerald, Pedrotti Emilio, Marchini Giorgio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature focusing on the effectiveness of amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEDs) in the treatment of ocular surface diseases.
METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched until March 4, 2024. Overall, we identified 1,121 studies, 26 of which were selected for a full-text review. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed for clinical improvements, time to resolution of corneal staining, adverse events, and preparation methods. Strength of clinical data was graded according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine.
RESULTS: Overall, AMED compounds were used in 296 eyes of 205 patients. Fifty-nine percent of eyes were treated for dry eye disease, 23% for an epithelial defect, and the rest (18%) for other corneal wound healing disorders. Three main types of eye drops preparation were described, that is, lyophilized, homogenized, and fresh AMED. Although the methods of outcome reporting were heterogeneous, all included studies showed various grades of improvement in both signs and symptoms. The overall incidence of ocular side effects was 2.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the suboptimal quality of evidence, overall, the available literature suggests that AMED is a valuable tool in the treatment of ocular surface disorders.
METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched until March 4, 2024. Overall, we identified 1,121 studies, 26 of which were selected for a full-text review. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed for clinical improvements, time to resolution of corneal staining, adverse events, and preparation methods. Strength of clinical data was graded according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine.
RESULTS: Overall, AMED compounds were used in 296 eyes of 205 patients. Fifty-nine percent of eyes were treated for dry eye disease, 23% for an epithelial defect, and the rest (18%) for other corneal wound healing disorders. Three main types of eye drops preparation were described, that is, lyophilized, homogenized, and fresh AMED. Although the methods of outcome reporting were heterogeneous, all included studies showed various grades of improvement in both signs and symptoms. The overall incidence of ocular side effects was 2.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the suboptimal quality of evidence, overall, the available literature suggests that AMED is a valuable tool in the treatment of ocular surface disorders.