ArticleScientific reports2020
In vitro validation of the tear matrix metalloproteinase 9 in-situ immunoassay.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Significance of Tear Matrix Metalloproteinase-9 Reaction Intensity in Thyroid Eye Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Tear matrix metalloproteinase 9 immunoassay positivity reflects the severity of conjunctivochalasis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The microenvironment of ocular surface in keratoconus: a systematic review.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Review
- Real-Time and Highly Sensitive Detection of Matrix Metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) in Tears Using Aptamer Functionalized Electrolyte-Gated IGZO Thin-Film Transistors.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Article
- How Can We Best Diagnose Severity Levels of Dry Eye Disease: Current Perspectives.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Early Dry Eye Disease Onset in a NOD.H-2h4 Mouse Model of Sjögren's Syndrome.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022Article
- Assessment of reliability and validity of the 5-scale grading system of the point-of-care immunoassay for tear matrix metalloproteinase-9.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to validate a tear MMP-9 in-situ immunoassay (InflammaDry) and to identify factors that could affect results or interpretation. Three factors were examined: sample concentration, volume, and time. Recombinant human (rh) MMP-9 (10 or 20 μl; 0, 12.5, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500, and 1,000 ng/ml) was applied to the kit and the detection limit and assay reproducibility were examined. At a rhMMP-9 volume of 10 μl (≥ 50 ng/ml), all positive results were identified by densitometry at 10 and 20 min; however, after 20 min, more than half of the nine ophthalmologists interpreted a positive result. At a rhMMP-9 volume of 20 μl (≥ 25 ng/ml), ophthalmologists and densitometry identified almost all test lines at 10 and 20 min. At 10 μl, densitometry showed a linear dose-response pattern. At 20 μl, densitometry showed a linear dose-response pattern at concentrations up to 500 ng/ml; however, full saturation was achieved at concentrations ≥ 500 ng/ml. When the same amount of rhMMP-9 was applied, the density result increased significantly upon doubling of the solvent volume (i.e., by adding the same volume of PBS to a sample). InflammaDry showed a high inter- and intra-assay coefficient of variation at 10 min (28.4% and 24.7%, respectively). The results of the MMP-9 in-situ immunoassay varied significantly depending on sample volume. Therefore, when interpreting the results, careful attention must be paid to tear volume.
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.