Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36261494›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2023

Repeatability, reproducibility and agreement between three different diagnostic imaging platforms for tear film evaluation of normal and dry eye disease.

Swati Singh, Saumya Srivastav, Zarin Modiwala, Mohammed Hasnat Ali, Sayan Basu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Repeatability of lipid layer thickness using LipiView® following removal of contact lenses and its relationship to comfort.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Swati Singh *Centre for Ocular Regeneration/Prof. Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, 500034, Telangana, India. dr.swati888@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7420-9438
Saumya SrivastavCentre for Ocular Regeneration/Prof. Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, 500034, Telangana, India.
Zarin ModiwalaCentre for Ocular Regeneration/Prof. Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, 500034, Telangana, India.
Mohammed Hasnat AliDepartment of Computational Bio-statistics & Data Sciences, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, 500034, Telangana, India.
Sayan Basu *Centre for Ocular Regeneration/Prof. Brien Holden Eye Research Centre, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, 500034, Telangana, India. sayanbasu@lvpei.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the repeatability and reliability of different commercially available diagnostic platforms in the objective assessment of tear film parameters and if there exists any agreement between them.

methodsThirty healthy individuals (N = 60 eyes) and fifteen DED patients (N = 30 eyes) had their tear film parameters (Lipid layer thickness (LLT), Tear meniscus height (TMH), Non-invasive tear break up time (NIBUT)) assessed using three instruments - LipiView® II, IDRA ocular surface analyser (IDRA-OSA) and Oculus keratograph 5 M (K5M). Bland-Altman analysis and linear mixed effects modelling & Generalized Linear Hypothesis Test were used for analysis and coefficient of variation (CoV).

resultsThere is poor repeatability but good reproducibility of LLT values measured with Lipiview, or IDRA. NIBUT using K5M & IDRA-OSA shows good repeatability and reproducibility in control group but poor repeatability in DED patients. TMH values obtained with K5M or IDRA-OSA had poor repeatability with high CoV. Between two observers, good reproducibility is observed for TMH and NIBUT values using both K5M & IDRA-OSA but not for LLT values. Between instruments, all the measurements (LLT, NIBUT and TMH) were significantly different on Bland Altman analysis.

conclusionNo two dry eye diagnostic platforms can be used interchangeably and non-invasive tear film values should be interpreted keeping in mind the individual machine's variability. The high coefficient of variation in DED patients compared to normal reflects inherent variability in tear film irrespective of the device used.

Indexed as

Dry Eye SyndromesDiagnostic ImagingHumansReproducibility of ResultsTears

Identifiers

PMID36261494
PMCPMC10333265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.