The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Tear Film Osmolarity: Determination of a Referent for Dry Eye Diagnosis
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine new referents, or cutoff levels for tear film hyperosmolarity in the diagnosis of keratoconjunctivitis sicca (KCS) and to assess their effectiveness in independent patient groups. METHOD: A meta-analysis was performed on published data for tear osmolarity in samples of normal eyes and various subtypes of dry eye, and pooled estimates of the mean and standard deviations for normal and (all) dry eye subjects were determined. Diagnostic referents were derived from the intercept between the distributions of osmolarity in the two samples and from receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. This referent was tested for effectiveness of diagnosis in independent groups with normal and dry eyes. RESULTS: An osmolarity referent of 315.6 mOsmol/L was derived from the intercept of the distribution curves, and 316 mOsmol/L from the ROC curve. When applied to independent groups of normal and dry eye subjects a value of 316 mOsmol/L was found to yield sensitivity of 59%, specificity of 94%, and an overall predictive accuracy of 89% for the diagnosis of dry eye syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Tear hyperosmolarity, defined by a referent of 316 mOsmol/L, was superior in overall accuracy to any other single test for dry eye diagnosis (Lactoplate, Schirmer test, and Rose Bengal staining), even when the other test measures were applied to a diagnosis within the sample groups from which they were derived. For overall accuracy in the diagnosis of dry eye, the osmolarity test was found to be comparable with the results of combined (in parallel or series) tests.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
(2007) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70081-2 · Cited by 3,267
TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report
Wolffsohn, J. S., Arita, R., Chalmers, R., Djalilian, A., Dogru, M., Dumbleton, K., Gupta, P. K., Karpecki, P., Lazreg, S., Pult, H., et al. (2017) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001 · Cited by 2,122
Self-citationDissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
An Objective Approach to Dry Eye Disease Severity
Sullivan, B. D., Whitmer, D., Nichols, K. K., Tomlinson, A., Foulks, G. N., Geerling, G., Pepose, J. S., Kosheleff, V., Porreco, A., & Lemp, M. A. (2010) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.10-5390 · Cited by 543
Self-citationFagerholm, P., Lagali, N. S., Merrett, K., Jackson, W. B., Munger, R., Liu, Y., Polarek, J. W., Söderqvist, M., & Griffith, M. (2010) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001022 · Cited by 420
Dry Eye as a Mucosal Autoimmune Disease
Stern, M. E., Schaumburg, C. S., & Pflugfelder, S. C. (2013) · International Reviews of Immunology · doi:10.3109/08830185.2012.748052 · Cited by 346
Deinema, L. A., Vingrys, A. J., Wong, C. Y., Jackson, D. C., Chinnery, H. R., & Downie, L. E. (2017) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.023 · Cited by 160
Effect of Oral Re-esterified Omega-3 Nutritional Supplementation on Dry Eyes
Epitropoulos, A. T., Donnenfeld, E. D., Shah, Z. A., Holland, E. J., Gross, M., Faulkner, W. J., Matossian, C., Lane, S. S., Toyos, M., Bucci, F. A., et al. (2016) · Cornea · doi:10.1097/ico.0000000000000940 · Cited by 114
Metadata
- Authors
- Tomlinson, A., Khanal, S., Ramaesh, K., Diaper, C., & McFadyen, A.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2006-10-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 4309
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W1982767852
- Cited by
- 569
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.81
- 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
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.