ArticleScientific reports2024
Agreement between invasive and noninvasive measurement of tear film breakup time.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement Between Tear Film Tests Performed by Novice Examiners.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Analytical Performance, Spatial Dynamics and Clinically Meaningful Change Thresholds for Automated Non-invasive Tear Film Assessment Using the Oculus Keratograph 5M.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Agreement Between Invasive and Non-invasive Assessments for Preoperative Dry Eye Disease Screening in Patients with Cataracts.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- The Impact of Dry Eye Disease on Corneal Biomechanics Analyzed with Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Comparing Non-Invasive and Fluorescein Tear Break-Up Time in a Pre-Operative Refractive Surgery Population: Implications for Clinical Diagnosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The agreement between fluorescein breakup time (FBUT) estimates and noninvasive breakup time (NIBUT) estimates automatically acquired using two videokeratoscopes was assessed. Small-cone (E300, Medmont) and large-bowl (K5M, OCULUS) Placido-ring-based videokeratoscopes were utilized for automated NIBUT estimation and fluorescein strip method was used for FBUT estimation. 33 subjects completed the study. Clear instructions were given regarding the blink before measurements. Bland-Altman analysis was used to test the agreement between tear film breakup time estimates and repeated measure analysis of variance was used to test the differences between measurement types. In comparison to FBUT, E300 NIBUT estimate was shorter (- 0.6 ± 2.6 s), whereas K5M NIBUT estimate was longer (3.3 ± 2.4 s). Limits of agreement for FBUT vs. E300 was 29.8 s, for FBUT vs. K5M 26.4 s, and 31.4 s for E300 vs. K5M. There were significant differences between tear film breakup times (F = 3.59, df = 2, P = 0.032). E300 and K5M NIBUT measurements have poor agreement with FBUT, even when blinking is precisely clarified. Agreement was better for shorted break up times than that for longer ones but in general NIBUT measurements are not interchangeable.
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.