ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2014
Patient acceptability of tear collection in the primary healthcare setting.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tear Biomarkers in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Diseases, and Multiple Sclerosis: Implications for Diagnosis (Systematic Review).International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Metabolomic changes in tear fluid following zinc biofortification in the BiZiFED nutritional study: a feasibility study.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Article
- Tear Samples for Protein Extraction: Comparative Analysis of Schirmer's Test Strip and Microcapillary Tube Methods.Cureus · 2023Article
- Tear Film MicroRNAs as Potential Biomarkers: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Changes in Tear Proteomic Profile in Ocular Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antibodies in tear fluid.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Tears - more to them than meets the eye: why tears are a good source of biomarkers in Parkinson's disease.Biomarkers in medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Tear Metabolomics in Dry Eye Disease: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Evaluation of vascular endothelial growth factor levels in tears and serum among diabetic patients.PloS one · 2019Article
- Tears as a window to Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review of biomarkers for early detection.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary healthcare setting is well placed for health screening. Tear fluid composition gives valuable information about the eye and systemic health, and there is now significant interest in the potential application of tears as a tool for health screening; however, the acceptability of tear collection in the primary healthcare setting as compared with other methods of human sample collection has not been previously addressed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the patient acceptability of tear collection in a primary healthcare setting.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study on 383 adult patients seeking primary healthcare, who were not diabetic and were not attending for an eye-related complaint. Tear collection was done using Schirmer strips, and an interviewer-administered questionnaire was conducted to collate information on the pain score (0-10) of the Schirmer tear collection, as well as to score the pain associated with their previous experience of antecubital venous puncture and finger prick test.
resultsThe pain score for Schirmer tear collection was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than antecubital venous puncture but higher (p < 0.001) than finger prick. The pain scores for all three procedures were significantly higher in participants of younger age, female gender, and higher education level. Among the participants, 70% did not mind their tears being collected to screen for eye problems, whereas only 38% did not mind this procedure being performed for general health screening. Nevertheless, 69% of the participants preferred tear to urine collection, and 74% of participants preferred tear to blood collection.
conclusionsTear collection using Schirmer strips is a highly acceptable form of investigation that has the potential for use in health screening in the primary healthcare setting. This study has implications on using tear collection as a method of ocular and systemic health screening in the primary healthcare setting.
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.