A randomized, double-masked trial of topical ketorolac versus artificial tears for treatment of viral conjunctivitis

Shiuey, Yichieh

doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00177-9

Cited by 64 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…No significant difference was found when the symptoms were individually evaluated or when the signs observed on ophthalmo logic examinations were analyzed. In contrast to a previous study eva luating 0.5% ketorolac with preservatives (5) , treatment with pre servativefree 0.45% ketorolac was not associated with the worsening of ocular hyperemia or stinging upon instillation. The frequency of reported side effects was similar in both groups.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluation of a patient's perception of overall improvement on the 3 rd and 7 th days of treatment showed no significant differences between the 2 studied groups, suggesting that both eye drops had similar effects. This finding was similar to those in previous reports on the use of 0.5% ketorolac tromethamine solution with preservati ves (5) . No significant difference was found when the symptoms were individually evaluated or when the signs observed on ophthalmo logic examinations were analyzed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Because of their good response in patients with allergic conjunctivitis (10) , 0.5% ketorolac was proposed for the treatment of adenoviral conjunctivitis. However, it was not superior to artificial tears in relieving itching, redness, foreign body sensation, tearing, and eyelid edema and was associated with discomfort (stinging and burning) upon instillation (5) . Such discomfort is associated with the preservative benzalkonium chloride (BAK), the surfactant octoxy nol40, and the metalchelating agent sodium edetate (8,9) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…In viral conjunctivitis associated with varicella, 0.5% ketorolac was more effective in decreasing con junctival hyperemia compared with artificial tears (11) . In adenoviral conjunctivitis, 0.5% ketorolac showed results similar to those of arti ficial tears in terms of providing symptomatic relief, but there were frequent stinging and burning sensations upon eyedrop instillation (5) . Currently, a formulation of 0.45% ketorolac tromethamine asso ciated with carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), with a better tolerability profile and bioavailability, is commercially available and is indicated for the treatment of pain and inflammation in patients undergoing cataract surgery (8,9,12) .…”

Section: Conclusão: O Uso Do Cetorolaco De Trometamina 045% Não Se Mmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Beneficial effects have been demonstrated with topical steroids (6) ; however, side effects such as ocular hypertension, cataract formation, delayed wound healing, and secondary infection limit their use (5) . Some stu dies have also shown that topical steroids can enhance virus replica tion and prolong the duration of virus shedding (7) .…”

Section: Conclusão: O Uso Do Cetorolaco De Trometamina 045% Não Se Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Artificial tears alone versus 0.45% ketorolac tromethamine with artificial tears for the treatment of acute viral conjunctivitis

Lyra¹,

Bastos²,

Lima³

et al. 2014

Arquivos Brasileiros De Oftalmologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Conclusão: O Uso Do Cetorolaco De Trometamina 045% Não Se Mmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Conclusão: O Uso Do Cetorolaco De Trometamina 045% Não Se Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Artificial tears alone versus 0.45% ketorolac tromethamine with artificial tears for the treatment of acute viral conjunctivitis

Lyra¹,

Bastos²,

Lima³

et al. 2014

Arquivos Brasileiros De Oftalmologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does This Patient With Acute Infectious Conjunctivitis Have a Bacterial Infection?

Johnson

Liu

Simel

2022

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Acute infectious conjunctivitis is characterized by ocular redness and discharge, and is a common clinical entity. Evidence-based tools to aid the clinical diagnosis of viral vs bacterial conjunctivitis are lacking and may contribute to overprescribing of topical antibiotics.OBJECTIVE To determine the relative prevalence of viral vs bacterial conjunctivitis in adults and children, and to determine which symptoms or signs are suggestive of a viral vs bacterial etiology.DATA SOURCES A MEDLINE search (January 1946-March 2022) yielded 1891 articles. Included articles were rated using a quality score based on a modified Rational Clinical Examination grading system. Methodological quality levels 1 through 4 required a microbiological reference standard for diagnosis, whereas quality level 5 (the lowest quality) used a clinical reference standard for diagnosis.STUDY SELECTION Consecutive series of patients presenting with acute infectious conjunctivitis and case series of viral or bacterial conjunctivitis alone. Thirty-two studies were included in a meta-analysis to determine prevalence and diagnostic accuracy measures; 27 used a microbiological reference standard for diagnosis and 5 used a clinical reference standard for diagnosis. RESULTSIn studies involving children (5 studies; 881 patients; mean age, 4.7 years [age range, 1 month-18 years]), the prevalence of bacterial conjunctivitis was higher than viral conjunctivitis (71% vs 16%, respectively, P = .01). In the only study of adults (n = 207 patients; mean age, 25.7 years), the prevalence of viral conjunctivitis was higher than bacterial conjunctivitis (78% vs 16%, respectively, P < .001). For the primary analysis of level 1 (n = 6) and level 2 (n = 5) studies (1725 patients total), the clinical findings that best distinguished a viral etiology for conjunctivitis from a bacterial etiology included pharyngitis (sensitivity range, 0.55-0.58; specificity range, 0.89-0.94; positive likelihood ratio [LR] range, 5.4-9.9), preauricular lymphadenopathy (sensitivity range, 0.17-0.31; specificity range, 0.93-0.94; positive LR range, 2.5-5.6), and contact with another person with red eye (

show abstract

Topical pharmacologic interventions versus placebo for epidemic keratoconjunctivitis

Kuo

Ren

Leviste

et al. 2020

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A randomized, double-masked trial of topical ketorolac versus artificial tears for treatment of viral conjunctivitis

Cited by 64 publications

References 11 publications

Artificial tears alone versus 0.45% ketorolac tromethamine with artificial tears for the treatment of acute viral conjunctivitis

Artificial tears alone versus 0.45% ketorolac tromethamine with artificial tears for the treatment of acute viral conjunctivitis

Does This Patient With Acute Infectious Conjunctivitis Have a Bacterial Infection?

Topical pharmacologic interventions versus placebo for epidemic keratoconjunctivitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About