Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
186,125 studies31 sourcesUpdated 6 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0PLOS One

USB-powered vs. self-heating warm compresses for meibomian gland dysfunction: A prospective randomized crossover clinical trial

  1. 1Optometry Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Background: Dry eye syndrome (DES) is a prevalent multifactorial condition characterized by tear film instability and meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Warm compress therapy remains a cornerstone for improving lipid layer function. However, very limited comparative data exist on newer USB-powered devices vs. self-heating masks in Middle Eastern populations. Methods: This randomized crossover clinical trial compared USB-powered and self-heating masks in 15 participants aged 18–40 years with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) associated eye (tear break-up time ≤10 s). Each intervention was scheduled for five consecutive days, separated by a two-week washout. The prespecified primary outcome was non-invasive TBUT measured with the OCULUS Keratograph 4M; tear meniscus height (TMH) and symptom scores were secondary outcomes. A two-way ANOVA and Post-hoc Bonferroni tests adjusted for multiple comparisons were used for analysis. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07618169). Results: All 15 participants contributed data to both intervention phases. Across observed visits, the USB-powered device was associated with higher TBUT (likelihood-ratio χ2(1) = 7.43, p = 0.006) and TMH (χ2(1) = 4.49, p = 0.034). Day 5 descriptive means with USB-Powered compress and self-heating mask were 9.53 ± 2.18 s versus 7.21 ± 2.90 s for TBUT, and 0.200 ± 0.020 mm versus 0.188 ± 0.016 mm for TMH, respectively. No significant between-device difference was observed in SPEED scores, although mean scores showed a mild improvement, and no adverse events were reported. Conclusions: USB-powered warm compresses provided superior outcomes in enhancing tear film stability and volume compared to self-heating masks. Consistent temperature control and reusability make them a promising at-home therapy for patients with MGD. USB-powered devices may be preferred for patients requiring sustained thermal therapy, particularly in arid climates with variable indoor cooling. Further large-scale trials are warranted to confirm these findings. Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number: NCT07618169.

Related

  1. Efficacy and safety of pancrelipase delayed-release capsules (CREON®) from new manufacturing sites: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, two-part, two-period, two-sequence, crossover, non-inferiority study
    Richard Ahrens, Daniel Layish, Lino Rodrigues +6
    TrialsPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Surgery & anaesthesiaCrossref
  2. Ultrasound-Guided Intra-articular Prolotherapy Versus Corticosteroid Injection for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
    Ruth Kikon, Anil K Gupta, Ganesh Yadav +5
    CureusPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPharmacology & toxicologyEurope PMCPMC
  3. Thermotherapy for prevention of perineal pain after vaginal birth: Evaluation of warm compresses and cold packs using a factorial randomized controlled trial
    Pauline Blanc-Petitjean, Clara Rollet, Géraldine Meunier +3
    International Journal of Gynecology and ObstetricsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Full textObstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsHAL
  4. Long-Term Effects of Paced Heart Rate on Central Blood Pressure in Patients with Sinus Node Dysfunction and Hypertension: A Randomised Crossover Study
    Tuuli Joonsalu, Silver Heinsar, Martin Serg +5
    Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. Blood flow restriction of sport-specific repeated-sprint training enhances acute physiological responses in elite female boxers: a randomized, crossover trial
    Shenguang Li, Dexin Wang, Pedro G. Morouço +2
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textGeneral medicineCrossref
BibTeX
@article{saqr2026usbpowered,
  title = {{USB-powered vs. self-heating warm compresses for meibomian gland dysfunction: A prospective randomized crossover clinical trial}},
  author = {Ali M. Al Saqr and Moath Faisal Alharbi and Meshary Alrumizan and Ali Abusharha},
  journal = {PLOS One},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0360762},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360762},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - USB-powered vs. self-heating warm compresses for meibomian gland dysfunction: A prospective randomized crossover clinical trial
AU  - Ali M. Al Saqr
AU  - Moath Faisal Alharbi
AU  - Meshary Alrumizan
AU  - Ali Abusharha
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/13
JO  - PLOS One
DO  - 10.1371/journal.pone.0360762
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360762
AB  - Background: Dry eye syndrome (DES) is a prevalent multifactorial condition characterized by tear film instability and meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Warm compress therapy remains a cornerstone for improving lipid layer function. However, very limited comparative data exist on newer USB-powered devices vs. self-heating masks in Middle Eastern populations. Methods: This randomized crossover clinical trial compared USB-powered and self-heating masks in 15 participants aged 18–40 years with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) associated eye (tear break-up time ≤10 s). Each intervention was scheduled for five consecutive days, separated by a two-week washout. The prespecified primary outcome was non-invasive TBUT measured with the OCULUS Keratograph 4M; tear meniscus height (TMH) and symptom scores were secondary outcomes. A two-way ANOVA and Post-hoc Bonferroni tests adjusted for multiple comparisons were used for analysis. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07618169). Results: All 15 participants contributed data to both intervention phases. Across observed visits, the USB-powered device was associated with higher TBUT (likelihood-ratio χ2(1) = 7.43, p = 0.006) and TMH (χ2(1) = 4.49, p = 0.034). Day 5 descriptive means with USB-Powered compress and self-heating mask were 9.53 ± 2.18 s versus 7.21 ± 2.90 s for TBUT, and 0.200 ± 0.020 mm versus 0.188 ± 0.016 mm for TMH, respectively. No significant between-device difference was observed in SPEED scores, although mean scores showed a mild improvement, and no adverse events were reported. Conclusions: USB-powered warm compresses provided superior outcomes in enhancing tear film stability and volume compared to self-heating masks. Consistent temperature control and reusability make them a promising at-home therapy for patients with MGD. USB-powered devices may be preferred for patients requiring sustained thermal therapy, particularly in arid climates with variable indoor cooling. Further large-scale trials are warranted to confirm these findings. Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number: NCT07618169.
SN  - 1932-6203
ER  -