Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,072

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Diagnostic Tests in the Sicca Syndrome

van Bijsterveld, O. P.·1969·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

The lysozyme test is the most sensitive test for the diagnosis of the sicca syndrome. The agar diffusion method could be used as a routine diagnostic procedure. With a diameter limit of 21½ mm of lysis under the test conditions described, one out of every 100 diagnoses would be wrong. For the rose bengal test, using a limit of score of staining intensity of 3½ one out of every 20 to 25 times a diagnostic error could be expected. With the Schirmer's 1 test, using a limit of 5½ mm wetting the filter-paper strip, one out of every six persons would be misclassified. No difference in values between men and women was found at any age level in any test. Age effects were found with lysozyme and Schirmer's 1 tests, but not with the rose bengal test.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.1969.00990020012003

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,072

Metadata

Authors
van Bijsterveld, O. P.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
1969-07-01
Volume
82
Issue
1
Pages
10-14
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080839328
Cited by
1,072
References
0
FWCI
4.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic Tests in the Sicca Syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.1969.00990020012003
The paper
van Bijsterveld, O. P. (1969). Diagnostic Tests in the Sicca Syndrome. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1969.00990020012003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.