Efficacy and Safety of Quantum Molecular Resonance Electrotherapy in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis
Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the effcacy and safety of quantum molecular resonance (QMR) electrotherapy in patients with dry eye disease (DED). Methods: A systematic review with metaanalysis, reporting the effects of QMR electro therapy in three databases, PubMed, Scopus and Web of...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Sevilla (US) |
| Repositorio: | idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:idus.us.es:11441/176142 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/11441/176142 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-025-01133-y |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Rexon-Eye Quantum molecular resonance electrotherapy Transcutaneous electrical stimulation Dry eye disease |
| Sumario: | Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the effcacy and safety of quantum molecular resonance (QMR) electrotherapy in patients with dry eye disease (DED). Methods: A systematic review with metaanalysis, reporting the effects of QMR electro therapy in three databases, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, was performed according to the PRISMA statement with a search period ending on December 24, 2024. Results: Seven studies, including four open-label, non-comparative trials and three randomized controlled studies (RCTs), were included. Although all studies reported signif cant improvements in most outcome measures after QMR electrotherapy, the meta-analysis indicated that overall effcacy did not signif cantly favor either group when comparing QMR electrotherapy to controls (SMD 0.40; 95% CI − 0.06 to 0.86; P = 0.09; I 2 = 85%). However, only the change in DED symptoms was signif cantly favorable for QMR electrotherapy com pared to controls (SMD 0.69; 95% CI 0.30–1.08; P = 0.0005; I 2 = 28%). In sensitivity analyses, overall effcacy remained non-signifcant when comparing QMR electrotherapy to placebo QMR electrotherapy (SMD 0.14; 95% CI − 0.24 to 0.52; P=0.46; I 2 =65%). Additionally, changes in DED symptoms, TBUT, ST, and CFS also showed no statistically signifcant differences between both groups. Regarding safety, most studies reported no AEs, with a satisfactory tolerability profle for QMR electrotherapy. However, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Conclusions: With the current scientifc litera ture available to date, QMR electrotherapy seems to show some evidence of alleviating DED symp toms. However, evidence supporting its effcacy in improving DED signs and safety remains lim ited. Therefore, further RCTs with robust designs are needed to confrm these fndings. |
|---|