I-JONG WANGLin I.-C.YU-CHIH HOUFUNG-RONG HU2020-11-272020-11-2720071120-6721https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-34250346940&doi=10.1177%2f112067210701700202&partnerID=40&md5=b8fbe2a02bc7e2016aae3eb8d7173bachttps://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/522461PURPOSE. To compare the efficacy, safety, and local tolerance between carbomer-based artificial tears, cellulose-, and mineral oil-based artificial tears. METHODS. A randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative 28-day study was designed for 67 patients who were randomized into three treatment groups. Measurements included the scoring of total subjective symptoms and objective signs, Schirmer-Jones test values, and tear break-up time (BUT) at baseline, and after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment. Safety of study treatment was also assessed. Outcomes measured at baseline and 2 and 4 weeks follow-up included the scoring of total subjective symptoms and objective signs, Schirmer-Jones test values, and tear BUT, subjective assessments, and safety. RESULTS. There were no differences regarding total scores, Schirmer-Jones test, or tear BUT at baseline among these three groups at 2 and 4 weeks. Patients in all three treatment groups experienced a significant improvement from baseline in total scores and Schirmer-Jones test values after treatment. Subjective assessment was better with carbomer-based treatment. CONCLUSIONS. Each artificial tear formulation successfully relieved symptoms and signs of keratoconjunctivitis sicca. The tolerance of carbomer-based artificial tears was comparable to that of cellulose- and mineral oil-based artificial tears. ? Wichtig Editore, 2007.[SDGs]SDG3artificial tear; carbomer; cellulose; cetrimide; mineral oil; sorbitol; adult; aged; article; blurred vision; burning sensation; clinical feature; clinical trial; controlled clinical trial; controlled study; demography; drug efficacy; drug formulation; dry eye; eyelid disease; female; human; keratoconjunctivitis sicca; major clinical study; male; outcome assessment; priority journal; randomized controlled trial; rating scale; scoring system; statistical analysis; sticky eyelid; symptomatology; treatment responsejournal article10.1177/11206721070170020217415686