Hoffmann, R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics (2008)

Editor

Personal info

View

About

Terms

Javascript disabled

Please enable Javascript support in your browser to use this application.

Instructions on how to enable JavaScript on different browsers can be found here: http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23852.

[edit this page]

Williams, C.P. et al.

Williams, Browning, Sleep, Webber, McGill,

A randomised, double-blind trial of topical ketorolac vs artificial tears for the treatment of episcleritis.

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.[1]

References

A randomised, double-blind trial of topical ketorolac vs artificial tears for the treatment of episcleritis. Williams, C.P., Browning, A.C., Sleep, T.J., Webber, S.K., McGill, J.I. Eye (London, England) (2005) [Pubmed]

Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenes Open Access Licence Privacy Policy Terms of Use apsburg

The world's first wiki where authorship really matters (Nature Genetics, 2008). Due credit and reputation for authors. Imagine a global collaborative knowledge base for original thoughts. Search thousands of articles and collaborate with scientists around the globe.