Trial reportInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2013
Comparison of low-abundance biomarker levels in capillary-collected nonstimulated tears and washout tears of aqueous-deficient and normal patients.
Trial report in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in Tear Proteomic Profile in Ocular Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Mass spectrometry analysis of human tear fluid biomarkers specific for ocular and systemic diseases in the context of 3P medicine.The EPMA journal · 2021Review
- Linked CSF reduction of phosphorylated tau and IL-8 in HIV associated neurocognitive disorder.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Review of Biomarkers in Ocular Matrices: Challenges and Opportunities.Pharmaceutical research · 2019Review
- TFOS DEWS II Tear Film Report.The ocular surface · 2017Review
- Human tear analysis with miniaturized multiplex cytokine assay on "wall-less" 96-well plate.Molecular vision · 2015Article
- Tear fluid extracellular DNA: diagnostic and therapeutic implications in dry eye disease.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLow tear volume limits the use of nonstimulated (NS) microcapillary tear collection in aqueous-deficient (AD) patients. Adding a small amount of "washout" fluid to the eye prior to tear collection is a potentially viable alternative method for abundant proteins, but is relatively untested for low-abundance biomarkers. This study determined the feasibility of the washout (WO) method as an NS alternative for low-abundance biomarkers. NS and WO biomarker profiles were compared between AD patients and non-AD controls to determine if the two methods identify the same intergroup differences.
methodsMatching NS and WO tears were collected from 48 patients by micropipette, the WO sample after instillation of 10 μL saline. Tear cytokine levels were measured by 27-Plex Bio-Rad assay. Bland-Altman analyses for each biomarker determined the agreement between tear sample types. Patients were grouped as AD or non-AD based on Schirmer score to determine if NS profile between-group differences were preserved in WO tears.
resultsBland-Altman plots showed good biomarker level agreement between NS and WO tears for most cytokines. Five biomarkers, among those most often cited as differing in AD dry eye, differed significantly between non-AD and AD groups in both tear types. Additional biomarker differences were seen in NS tears only.
conclusionsThe WO tear collection method is a viable alternative to NS tears for many low-abundance biomarkers and is able to replicate major NS tear differences between dry eye groups. More subtle intergroup differences are lost in WO samples because of reduced statistical power.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.