ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
The utility of software-detected non-invasive tear break-up in comparison to fluorescein tear break-up measurements.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. 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.
- 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
- Evaluating the Effect of Image Enhancement on Diagnostic Reliability in Dry Eye Disease Using a Portable Imaging Device.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to characterize and discuss the difference between software-detected non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT) and the traditional clinical method of fluorescein break-up time (FBUT). Methods: Tear interferometry with the KOWA DR-1α (Kowa, Japan) and a standardized comprehensive ocular surface/tear evaluation were performed in 307 eyes. Software-detected NIBUT in the KOWA DR-1α images and the investigator-detected FBUT were compared. Results: Software-detected NIBUT was significantly shorter than investigator-measured FBUT. NIBUT was 3.1 ± 2.5 s (mean ± SD), whereas FBUT was 4.8 ± 3.0 s. This difference was due to three different patterns or conditions: a spot break immediately after eyelid opening, moderate to severe keratitis sicca, and epithelial basement membrane corneal dystrophy (EBMD). In these cases, rapid tear film disruption was not captured by FBUT. A spot break immediately after eye opening that rapidly disappears was observed with conjunctivochalasis. This type of break-up may be difficult to detect using fluorescein because the human eye cannot catch such rapid blinks or post-blink events. In the second group with severe corneal epithelial disease, break-up may occur over the entire corneal surface upon eye opening, and distinct fluorescein tear break-up may not be identified because of poor dye dilution or spread over the corneal surface, whereas the non-invasive break-up is not solution-dependent, and the software can detect a distinct appearance. In the third group with EBMD, it is possible that focal break-up in the fluorescein pattern over the epithelial elevations, which might be missed visually, can be detected by software in video images. Conclusion: We found that software-detected NIBUT is more sensitive in detecting tear break-up, can identify certain tear film disruptions that are missed by traditional FBUT, and may be more useful in distinguishing certain tear disorders.
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.