Autologous serum eye drops for dry eye

Background Theoretically, autologous serum eye drops (AS) offer a potential advantage over traditional therapies on the assumption that AS not only serve as a lacrimal substitute to provide lubrication but contain other biochemical components that allow them to mimic natural tears more closely. Application of AS has gained popularity as second‐line therapy for patients with dry eye. Published studies on this subject indicate that autologous serum could be an effective treatment for dry eye. Objectives We conducted this review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AS given alone or in combination with artificial tears as compared with artificial tears alone, saline, placebo, or no treatment for adults with dry eye. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In‐Process and Other Non‐Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2016), Embase (January 1980 to July 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to July 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We also searched the Science Citation Index Expanded database (December 2016) and reference lists of included studies. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 5 July 2016. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared AS versus artificial tears for treatment of adults with dry eye. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened all titles and s and assessed full‐text reports of potentially eligible trials. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias and characteristics of included trials. We contacted investigators to ask for missing data. For both primary and secondary outcomes, we reported mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. We did not perform meta‐analysis owing to differences in outcome assessments across trials. Main results We identified five eligible RCTs (92 participants) that compared AS versus artificial tears or saline in individuals with dry eye of various origins (Sjögren's syndrome‐related dry eye, non‐Sjögren's