Background: Corneal abrasions are superficial defects of the epithelium of the cornea. Corneal abrasions are among the most frequent ocular conditions encountered in eye emergency departments. Treating a corneal abrasion with a patch (some form of occlusion of the affected eye) and use of topical antibiotics is the recommended therapy for corneal abrasion in many references and is widely used around the world. However, this practice has been questioned as the findings of a number of trials have suggested little or no benefit, or even retarded healing when an eye patch is used. A recent audit demonstrated a marked discrepancy between available evidence and current practice. The audit found no strong evidence to support any treatment of corneal abrasions (usually involving a patch) despite a number of trials on the topic. A systematic review on the use of patching was completed in 1998 but, since then, more randomised trials have been published, and the methods used in that review could also be improved on. There is, therefore, considerable uncertainty about the effects of this intervention and, given the amount of randomised evidence already available, a systematic review should be the most effective way to resolve this and to help people make more informed decisions about the care of this common condition.

Objective: To determine the effects of corneal patching in the treatment of corneal abrasion.

Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2004) and Excerpta Medica/EMBASE (January 1974 to April 2004). We contacted authors of patching trials published in the last ten years to inquire about additional published or unpublished trials.

Selection Criteria: Randomised trials that examine the use of corneal patches and objectively measure the rate of healing or time to complete healing of the simple abrasion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Based on the title and abstract (when available), two researchers identified studies for potential relevance. The complete text was retrieved and using a priori inclusion criteria, the studies were independently reviewed for relevance by two reviewers and two people independently assessed quality. Differences with respect to inclusion status and quality assessment were resolved by consensus. Data were extracted using a structured form by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. Standard statistical analyses were performed.
Results and Conclusions: The review is currently in progress and full results will be available in time for the Colloquium.