Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28475698›Full record

ReviewInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2017

The Growing Need for Validated Biomarkers and Endpoints for Dry Eye Clinical Research.

Neeta S Roy, Yi Wei, Eric Kuklinski, Penny A Asbell

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Translating Biomarker Discovery: From Bench to Bedside in Dry Eye Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Neeta S RoyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States.
Yi WeiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States.
Eric KuklinskiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States.
Penny A AsbellDepartment of Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

The Dry Eye Evaluation And Management (DREAM) Study: Coordinating CenterU10EY022879 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MAGUIRE, MAUREEN G · 2013 to 2018
$7.3M
Dry Eye Evaluation and Management (DREAM) StudyU10EY022881 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCI CTR · PI ASBELL, PENNY · 2013 to 2020
$2.2M
NEI NIH HHS U10 EY022879NEI NIH HHS U10 EY022881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Biomarkers with minimally invasive and reproducible objective metrics provide the key to future paradigm shifts in understanding of the underlying causes of dry eye disease (DED) and approaches to treatment of DED. We review biomarkers and their validity in providing objective metrics for DED clinical research and patient care. Methods: The English-language literature in PubMed primarily over the last decade was surveyed for studies related to identification of biomarkers of DED: (1) inflammation, (2) point-of-care, (3) ocular imaging, and (4) genetics. Relevant studies in each group were individually evaluated for (1) methodological and analytical details, (2) data and concordance with other similar studies, and (3) potential to serve as validated biomarkers with objective metrics. Results: Significant work has been done to identify biomarkers for DED clinical trials and for patient care. Interstudy variation among studies dealing with the same biomarker type was high. This could be attributed to biologic variations and/or differences in processing, and data analysis. Correlation with other signs and symptoms of DED was not always clear or present. Conclusions: Many of the biomarkers reviewed show the potential to serve as validated and objective metrics for clinical research and patient care in DED. Interstudy variation for a given biomarker emphasizes the need for detailed reporting of study methodology, including information on subject characteristics, quality control, processing, and analysis methods to optimize development of nonsubjective metrics. Biomarker development offers a rich opportunity to significantly move forward clinical research and patient care in DED. Overview: DED is an unmet medical need - a chronic pain syndrome associated with variable vision that affects quality of life, is common with advancing age, interferes with the comfortable use of contact lenses, and can diminish results of eye surgeries, such as cataract extraction, LASIK, and glaucoma procedures. It is a worldwide medical challenge with a prevalence rate ranging from 8% to 50%. Many clinicians and researchers across the globe are searching for better answers to understand the mechanisms related to the development and chronicity of DED. Though there have been many clinical trials for DED, few new treatments have emerged over the last decade. Biomarkers may provide the needed breakthrough to propel our understanding of DED to the next level and the potential to realize our goal of truly personalized medicine based on scientific evidence. Clinical trials and research on DED have suffered from the lack of validated biomarkers and less than objective and reproducible endpoints. Current work on biomarkers has provided the groundwork to move forward. This review highlights primarily ocular biomarkers that have been investigated for use in DED, discusses the methodologic outcomes in providing objective metrics for clinical research, and suggests recommendations for further work.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchBiomarkersDry Eye SyndromesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTearsBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID28475698
PMCPMC5455411
OpenAlexW2610374659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.