Jerry R Paugh1, June Tse2, Tiffany Nguyen3, Alan Sasai1, Elaine Chen1, Melinda Thomas De Jesus4, Justin Kwan5, Andrew Loc Nguyen6, Marjan Farid7, Sumit Garg7, James V Jester7,8. 1. Southern California College of Optometry at Marshall B. Ketchum University, Fullerton, CA. 2. Private Practice, Hillsboro, OR. 3. Private Practice, Dover, DE. 4. Private Practice, West Covina, CA. 5. Private Practice, Niles, IL. 6. Department of Mathematics, California State University, Fullerton, CA. 7. Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, and. 8. Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of volume and method on fluorescein tear breakup time (TBUT) values and to evaluate test efficacy in an independent sample free of selection bias. METHODS: Subjects were assessed using a battery of dry eye tests (DETs). Efficacy study: Subjects were randomized to the DET, standard strip, and liquid NaFl on separate days. A masked examiner measured TBUTs from video recordings. Verification study: Subjects were investigated for efficacy using volumes of 5.0 and 2.0 μL mL of NaFl for TBUT. RESULTS: Efficacy study: 46 subjects completed the study. Log-transformed TBUTs were significantly different, normal subjects versus dry subjects, for all 3 methods (all P values < 0.001). Area under the curves (AUCs), cut-points, sensitivity, and specificity were 1) DET: 0.873, 4.4 seconds, 0.97, and 0.67, respectively; 2) 2.0 mL: 0.901, 3.22 seconds, 0.90, and 0.87, respectively; and 3) standard strip: 0.912, 3.42 seconds, 0.97, and 0.80, respectively. Verification study: Data splitting analysis for the 2.0 μL data (n = 174 dry subjects and 97 normal subjects) generated an AUC of 0.917 and a cut-point of 6.05 seconds for a sensitivity of 0.87 and a specificity of 0.81. The 5.0 μL sample yielded an AUC of 0.940, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.92 and 0.83, respectively, at a cut-point of 5.5 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: Little difference in TBUT was found using the 3 clinical methods with video recordings. Analysis using liquid NaFl suggests that the TBUT test has excellent diagnostic accuracy and that a cut-point of 5.3 to 6.0 seconds is the optimum to differentiate normals from persons with dry eye.
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of volume and method on fluorescein tear breakup time (TBUT) values and to evaluate test efficacy in an independent sample free of selection bias. METHODS: Subjects were assessed using a battery of dry eye tests (DETs). Efficacy study: Subjects were randomized to the DET, standard strip, and liquid NaFl on separate days. A masked examiner measured TBUTs from video recordings. Verification study: Subjects were investigated for efficacy using volumes of 5.0 and 2.0 μL mL of NaFl for TBUT. RESULTS: Efficacy study: 46 subjects completed the study. Log-transformed TBUTs were significantly different, normal subjects versus dry subjects, for all 3 methods (all P values < 0.001). Area under the curves (AUCs), cut-points, sensitivity, and specificity were 1) DET: 0.873, 4.4 seconds, 0.97, and 0.67, respectively; 2) 2.0 mL: 0.901, 3.22 seconds, 0.90, and 0.87, respectively; and 3) standard strip: 0.912, 3.42 seconds, 0.97, and 0.80, respectively. Verification study: Data splitting analysis for the 2.0 μL data (n = 174 dry subjects and 97 normal subjects) generated an AUC of 0.917 and a cut-point of 6.05 seconds for a sensitivity of 0.87 and a specificity of 0.81. The 5.0 μL sample yielded an AUC of 0.940, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.92 and 0.83, respectively, at a cut-point of 5.5 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: Little difference in TBUT was found using the 3 clinical methods with video recordings. Analysis using liquid NaFl suggests that the TBUT test has excellent diagnostic accuracy and that a cut-point of 5.3 to 6.0 seconds is the optimum to differentiate normals from persons with dry eye.
Authors: Esen K Akpek; Guillermo Amescua; Marjan Farid; Francisco J Garcia-Ferrer; Amy Lin; Michelle K Rhee; Divya M Varu; David C Musch; Steven P Dunn; Francis S Mah Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Michael A Lemp; Anthony J Bron; Christophe Baudouin; José M Benítez Del Castillo; David Geffen; Joe Tauber; Gary N Foulks; Jay S Pepose; Benjamin D Sullivan Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Helene Lam; Lauren Bleiden; Cintia S de Paiva; William Farley; Michael E Stern; Stephen C Pflugfelder Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ahmad M Abdul-Fattah; Hridaya N Bhargava; Donald R Korb; Thomas Glonek; Victor M Finnemore; Jack V Greiner Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Jerry R Paugh; Tiffany Nguyen; Alan Sasai; Elaine Chen; Melinda Thomas De Jesus; Justin Kwan; Andrew Loc Nguyen; Marjan Farid; Sumit Garg; James V Jester Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Jerry R Paugh; Elaine Chen; Justin Kwan; Tiffany Nguyen; Alan Sasai; Melinda Thomas De Jesus; Andrew Loc Nguyen; Michael T Christensen; David Meadows Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.283