Literature DB >> 29392287

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Methods of Tear Film Stability Assessment: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Michael T M Wang1, Jennifer P Craig1.   

Abstract

Importance: Tear film breakup time assessment is an integral component of dry eye evaluation. To our knowledge, the comparative discriminative ability of the noninvasive Keratograph (Oculus) vs conventional fluorescein method in detecting dry eye is unknown. Objective: To compare tear film stability measurements obtained with an automated noninvasive corneal topographer vs conventional fluorescein methods and evaluate their respective discriminative ability in detecting dry eye. Design, Setting, and Participants: This investigator-masked randomized crossover trial was conducted at a single-center university clinic between May 26, 2016, and October 3, 2016, and included 74 participants 18 years or older. Participants were recruited into 2 equally sized age, sex, and race/ethnicity-matched groups, with and without symptomatic dry eye (Ocular Surface Disease Index ≥13). Interventions: Participants were assigned to receive a noninvasive keratograph evaluation and topical fluorescein instillation in a randomized order. Main Outcomes and Measures: Noninvasive keratograph breakup time (NIKBUT) and fluorescein breakup time (TBUT). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, Youden-optimal diagnostic cutoff sensitivity, and specificity of NIKBUT and TBUT in detecting dry eye.
Results: Seventy-four participants (74 eyes; 43 women [58.1%]) with a mean (SD) age of 24 (4) years were randomized. Noninvasive keratograph breakup time was significantly longer than TBUT in participants with dry eye (median, 6.3 seconds vs 4.3 seconds [difference, 2.0 seconds]; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4 seconds; P = .003), and healthy participants (median, 11.9 seconds vs 5.0 seconds [difference, 6.9 seconds]; 95% CI, 4.7-7.6 seconds; P < .001). Fluorescein breakup time measurements were more narrowly distributed in both the dry eye (variance, 188 seconds2 vs 27.9 seconds2; P < .001) and control groups (variance, 113 seconds2 vs 13.4 seconds2; P < .001). The discriminative ability of NIKBUT in detecting dry eye (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.81; P = .007) was greater than that of TBUT (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.70; P = .31). The optimal diagnostic cutoff for NIKBUT was 9 seconds or less with a sensitivity of 68% (95% CI, 50%-82%), specificity of 70% (95% CI, 53%-84%), positive likelihood ratio of 2.27 (95% CI, 1.32-3.91), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.28-0.77). The optimal threshold for TBUT was 5 seconds or less with a sensitivity of 54% (95% CI, 37%-71%), specificity of 68% (95% CI, 50%-82%), positive likelihood ratio of 1.67 (95% CI, 0.96-2.89), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.45-1.03). Conclusions and Relevance: Conventional fluorescein tear film breakup time measurements were significantly shorter with narrower distributions, while automated noninvasive keratograph readings displayed superior discriminative ability in detecting dry eye. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12617001428358.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29392287      PMCID: PMC5885903          DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6489

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2168-6165            Impact factor:   7.389


  14 in total

1.  Agreement between Automated and Traditional Measures of Tear Film Breakup.

Authors:  Stephanie M Cox; Kelly K Nichols; Jason J Nichols
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.973

Review 2.  TFOS DEWS II pain and sensation report.

Authors:  Carlos Belmonte; Jason J Nichols; Stephanie M Cox; James A Brock; Carolyn G Begley; David A Bereiter; Darlene A Dartt; Anat Galor; Pedram Hamrah; Jason J Ivanusic; Deborah S Jacobs; Nancy A McNamara; Mark I Rosenblatt; Fiona Stapleton; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 3.  TFOS DEWS II pathophysiology report.

Authors:  Anthony J Bron; Cintia S de Paiva; Sunil K Chauhan; Stefano Bonini; Eric E Gabison; Sandeep Jain; Erich Knop; Maria Markoulli; Yoko Ogawa; Victor Perez; Yuichi Uchino; Norihiko Yokoi; Driss Zoukhri; David A Sullivan
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 4.  TFOS DEWS II iatrogenic report.

Authors:  José Alvaro P Gomes; Dimitri T Azar; Christophe Baudouin; Nathan Efron; Masatoshi Hirayama; Jutta Horwath-Winter; Terry Kim; Jodhbir S Mehta; Elisabeth M Messmer; Jay S Pepose; Virender S Sangwan; Alan L Weiner; Steven E Wilson; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 5.  TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report.

Authors:  Fiona Stapleton; Monica Alves; Vatinee Y Bunya; Isabelle Jalbert; Kaevalin Lekhanont; Florence Malet; Kyung-Sun Na; Debra Schaumberg; Miki Uchino; Jelle Vehof; Eloy Viso; Susan Vitale; Lyndon Jones
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 5.033

6.  Minimising instilled volume reduces the impact of fluorescein on clinical measurements of tear film stability.

Authors:  Jennifer K Mooi; Michael T M Wang; Joevy Lim; Andreas Müller; Jennifer P Craig
Journal:  Cont Lens Anterior Eye       Date:  2017-02-04       Impact factor: 3.077

7.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Current patterns in the use of diagnostic tests in dry eye evaluation.

Authors:  Janine Smith; Kelly K Nichols; Edward K Baldwin
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.651

9.  Minimal clinically important difference for the ocular surface disease index.

Authors:  Kimberly L Miller; John G Walt; David R Mink; Sacha Satram-Hoang; Steven E Wilson; Henry D Perry; Penny A Asbell; Stephen C Pflugfelder
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-01

10.  Assessment of Somatosensory Function in Patients With Idiopathic Dry Eye Symptoms.

Authors:  Anat Galor; Roy C Levitt; Katherine T McManus; Jerry P Kalangara; Benjamin E Seiden; Jasmine J Park; Derek B Covington; Constantine D Sarantopoulos; Elizabeth R Felix
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 7.389

View more
  6 in total

1.  Comparative Evaluation of 5 Validated Symptom Questionnaires as Screening Instruments for Dry Eye Disease.

Authors:  Michael T M Wang; Ally L Xue; Jennifer P Craig
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 7.389

2.  Corneal nerve structure in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome in China.

Authors:  Fangting Li; Qin Zhang; Xin Ying; Jing He; Yuebo Jin; Huiwen Xu; Yaobin Cheng; Mingwei Zhao
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 2.209

3.  Analysis of the first tear film break-up point in Sjögren's syndrome and non-Sjögren's syndrome dry eye patients.

Authors:  Songjiao Zhao; Qihua Le
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 2.209

4.  Evaluation of the Ocular Surface and Meibomian Gland in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Hypopnea Syndrome.

Authors:  Shaohua Liu; Shisheng Li; Mengmeng Li; Shiying Zeng; Baihua Chen; Liwei Zhang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-02-09

5.  Subjective Comparison of Pre-Lens Tear Film Stability of Daily Disposable Contact Lenses Using Ring Mire Projection.

Authors:  Christiane Müller; Sebastian Marx; Julia Wittekind; Wolfgang Sickenberger
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2020-02-28

6.  The Role of Hi-Tech Devices in Assessment of Corneal Healing in Patients with Neurotrophic Keratopathy.

Authors:  Leandro Inferrera; Emanuela Aragona; Adam Wylęgała; Antonio Valastro; Gianluigi Latino; Elisa I Postorino; Romana Gargano; Bogusława Orzechowska-Wylęgała; Edward Wylęgała; Anna M Roszkowska
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 4.241

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.