Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 2, CD009729

Over the Counter (OTC) Artificial Tear Drops for Dry Eye Syndrome


Over the Counter (OTC) Artificial Tear Drops for Dry Eye Syndrome

Andrew D Pucker et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.


Background: Over the counter (OTC) artificial tears historically have been the first line of treatment for dry eye syndrome and dry eye-related conditions like contact lens discomfort, yet currently we know little regarding the overall efficacy of individual, commercially available artificial tears. This review provides a much needed meta-analytical look at all randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials that have analyzed head-to-head comparisons of OTC artificial tears.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of OTC artificial tear applications in the treatment of dry eye syndrome compared with another class of OTC artificial tears, no treatment, or placebo.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2015, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2015), the ISRCTN registry (, (, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) ( and the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) website ( We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 December 2015. We searched reference lists of included trials for any additional trials not identified by the electronic searches.

Selection criteria: This review includes randomized controlled trials with adult participants who were diagnosed with dry eye, regardless of race and gender. We included trials in which the age of participants was not reported, and clinical trials comparing OTC artificial tears with another class of OTC artificial tears, placebo, or no treatment. This review did not consider head-to-head comparisons of artificial tears with another type of dry-eye therapy.

Data collection and analysis: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened the search results, reviewed full-text copies for eligibility, examined risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data. We summarized all other included trial results in the text.

Main results: We included 43 randomized controlled trials (3497 participants with dry eye). Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics among the included trials with respect to types of diagnostic criteria, interventions, comparisons, and measurements taken, our ability to perform meta-analyses was limited. The review found that, in general, there was uncertainty whether different OTC artificial tears provide similar relief of signs and symptoms when compared with each other or placebo. Nevertheless, we found that 0.2% polyacrylic acid-based artificial tears were consistently more effective at treating dry eye symptoms than 1.4% polyvinyl alcohol-based artificial tears in two trials assessing this comparison (175 participants). All other included artificial tears produced contradictory between-group results or found no between-group differences. Our review also found that OTC artificial tears may be generally safe, but not without adverse events. Overall, we assessed the quality of evidence as low due to high risks of bias among included trials and poor reporting of outcome measures which were insufficient for quantitative analysis. Furthermore, we identified an additional 18 potentially eligible trials that were reported only in clinical trial registers with no associated results or publications. These trials reportedly enrolled 2079 total participants for whom no data are available. Such lack of reporting of trial results represents a high risk of publication bias.

Authors' conclusions: OTC artificial tears may be safe and effective means for treating dry eye syndrome; the literature indicates that the majority of OTC artificial tears may have similar efficacies. This conclusion could be greatly skewed by the inconsistencies in study designs and inconsistencies in reporting trial results. Additional research is therefore needed before we can draw robust conclusions about the effectiveness of individual OTC artificial tear formulations.


Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included trial.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Comparison: 0.3% carbomer versus placebo, outcome: 2.1 Mean change in symptom scores.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of comparison: 3 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose(CMC) versus sodium hyaluronate, outcome: 3.1 Mean change from baseline in symptom scores at Month 1.

Similar articles

  • Autologous serum eye drops for dry eye.
    Pan Q, Angelina A, Marrone M, Stark WJ, Akpek EK. Pan Q, et al. Version 2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 28;2(2):CD009327. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009327.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28245347 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Autologous serum eye drops for dry eye.
    Pan Q, Angelina A, Zambrano A, Marrone M, Stark WJ, Heflin T, Tang L, Akpek EK. Pan Q, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 27;8(8):CD009327. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009327.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 23982997 Free PMC article. Updated. Review.
  • Punctal occlusion for dry eye syndrome.
    Ervin AM, Law A, Pucker AD. Ervin AM, et al. Version 2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 26;6(6):CD006775. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006775.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28649802 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Topical cyclosporine A therapy for dry eye syndrome.
    de Paiva CS, Pflugfelder SC, Ng SM, Akpek EK. de Paiva CS, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 13;9(9):CD010051. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010051.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. PMID: 31517988
  • Laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery.
    Day AC, Gore DM, Bunce C, Evans JR. Day AC, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jul 8;7(7):CD010735. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010735.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27387849 Free PMC article. Review.
See all similar articles

Cited by 15 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources