ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020
Quantifying Sample Collection and Processing Impacts on Fiber-Based Tear Fluid Chemical Analysis.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in Tear Proteomic Profile in Ocular Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- An Extensive Study of Phenol Red Thread as a Novel Non-Invasive Tear Sampling Technique for Proteomics Studies: Comparison with Two Commonly Used Methods.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Noninvasive analyses of tear fluid from humans and animal models in clinical and research settings most commonly use absorbent material for collection and processing. Still, the impact of these analytical techniques on tear chemical analyses remains largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to quantify the impacts of phenol red thread fiber-based tear sample collection and processing on the primary amine content. Methods: Human tears were collected by placing the folded end of phenol red thread on the palpebral conjunctiva of the right eye for 20 seconds. The wetted thread was then processed using elution or extraction, and capillary electrophoresis with light-emitting diode-induced fluorescence detection was used for analysis and quantitation. Results: Distinct processing methods impacted tear analysis differently. Primary amines adsorbed onto the thread partitioned in a chromatographic manner and thus any single portion of the wetted thread might not be representative of the whole sample. Quantitative assessment of five small molecule standards after on-thread processing showed significant overestimation of the actual concentration, with increased accuracy for larger volume samples. Yet collection of larger tear volumes introduced error in volume determination owing to evaporation and reduced small molecule separation resolution. Conclusions: These results indicated that absorption-based tear fluid collection and processing significantly alter chemical content analysis, suggesting that the impacts of methods used should be regularly evaluated to standardize results drawn from different studies. Translational Relevance: This study identifies potential inconsistencies and inaccuracies in tear analyses that are widespread across the published literature and clinical care.
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.