A randomised, double-blind trial of topical ketorolac vs artificial tears for the treatment of episcleritis
Williams, C.P.R., Browning, A.C., Sleep, T.J., Webber, S.K. and McGill, J.I. (2005) A randomised, double-blind trial of topical ketorolac vs artificial tears for the treatment of episcleritis. Eye, 19, (7), 739-742. (doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701632).
Full text not available from this repository.
Purpose: To determine whether topical ketorolac (Acular) is more effective than artificial tears in treating the signs and symptoms of idiopathic episcleritis.
Methods: In this prospective, randomised, double-blind study, 38 eyes of 37 patients presenting with idiopathic episcleritis were allocated to receive either topical ketorolac (0.5%) or artificial tears three times a day for 3 weeks. The severity of patients' signs (episcleral injection and the number of clock hours affected) were recorded at weekly intervals. Patients' symptoms (perceived redness and pain scores) were recorded using a daily diary.
Results: There was no significant difference in the ophthalmic signs between the two groups at each assessment, including intensity of episcleral injection and the number of clock hours affected. No significant difference was found in the time to halve the baseline redness intensity scores (4.4 vs 6.1 days, P=0.2) or pain scores (3.6 vs 4.3 days, P=0.55). Significantly more patients on ketorolac reported stinging at the first follow-up visit (P<0.001).
Conclusion: Topical ketorolac is not significantly better than artificial tears in treating the signs or symptoms of idiopathic episcleritis.
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI):||doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701632|
|Additional Information:||Clinical Study|
|Subjects:||R Medicine > RE Ophthalmology|
|Divisions:||University Structure - Pre August 2011 > School of Medicine > Infection, Inflammation and Repair
|Date Deposited:||25 Apr 2006|
|Last Modified:||06 Aug 2015 02:28|
|RDF:||RDF+N-Triples, RDF+N3, RDF+XML, Browse.|
Actions (login required)