Objective： Assess the profile of eye drops in patients with eye diseases. Methods： Studies available in the scientific literature were identified without any time limits using the databases Embase-Medline, Scielo, S...Objective： Assess the profile of eye drops in patients with eye diseases. Methods： Studies available in the scientific literature were identified without any time limits using the databases Embase-Medline, Scielo, Scopus and Web of Knowledge. The selected studies were compared with the following inclusion criteria： （i） if the study evaluated the eye drop instillation, （ii） if the study involved participation of patients with eye diseases. Results： Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Of them, 83.33% evaluated the technique of eye drop instillation in patients with glaucoma, 8.33% in patients with eye diseases and 8.33% in patients with cataract after undergoing surgery to correct. 41.66% of studies have chosen to record a video of patients to analyze the technique of instilling eye drops and 41.66% did not describe the/esearch location. Regarding the type of study, 75% had the design as prospective cross-sectional, 8.33% prospective open label study, 8.33% intervention study and 8.33% study called masked trial. Although studies evaluate the technique of eye drop instillation, only 8.33% describe in the article the reference in the literature used to evaluate patients. 50% of articles acknowledged some sort of bias or limitation. Conclusion： The limitations inherent in these types of studies should guide future research.展开更多
文摘Objective： Assess the profile of eye drops in patients with eye diseases. Methods： Studies available in the scientific literature were identified without any time limits using the databases Embase-Medline, Scielo, Scopus and Web of Knowledge. The selected studies were compared with the following inclusion criteria： （i） if the study evaluated the eye drop instillation, （ii） if the study involved participation of patients with eye diseases. Results： Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Of them, 83.33% evaluated the technique of eye drop instillation in patients with glaucoma, 8.33% in patients with eye diseases and 8.33% in patients with cataract after undergoing surgery to correct. 41.66% of studies have chosen to record a video of patients to analyze the technique of instilling eye drops and 41.66% did not describe the/esearch location. Regarding the type of study, 75% had the design as prospective cross-sectional, 8.33% prospective open label study, 8.33% intervention study and 8.33% study called masked trial. Although studies evaluate the technique of eye drop instillation, only 8.33% describe in the article the reference in the literature used to evaluate patients. 50% of articles acknowledged some sort of bias or limitation. Conclusion： The limitations inherent in these types of studies should guide future research.
