Trial reportCornea2025
Intereye Agreement in Dry-Eye Signs in the DREAM Study: Implications for Future Dry-Eye Trials.
Trial report in Cornea, 2025. 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.
- Dynamic Tear Film Stability Assessed via an Open-View Double-Pass Imaging System.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- The repeatability of tests for dry eye signs and symptoms in the dry eye assessment and management (DREAM) study.Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate intereye agreement in dry-eye disease (DED) signs in the Dry Eye Assessment and Management study.
methodsTear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer test, conjunctival staining, corneal staining, meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD), and tear osmolarity were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Intereye agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient, weighted kappa, and percentage of participants with absolute intereye difference (AID) exceeding a clinically significant threshold (2 points for conjunctival staining and MGD, 2 seconds for TBUT, 3 points for corneal staining, 5 mm/5 minutes for Schirmer test, and 8 mOsms/L for osmolarity). The worse eye at each visit for each DED sign was determined as the eye with a sign worse than the contralateral eye by at least the clinically significant threshold.
resultsDED signs had moderate-to-good intereye agreement with intraclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.45 (tear osmolarity) to 0.81 (corneal staining and Schirmer test) and weighted kappa from 0.58 (plugging) to 0.69 (lid secretion). Percentage of participants exceeding threshold AID was 15% to 20% for conjunctival staining, 11% to 15% for TBUT, 17% to 21% for MGD, 13% to 18% for corneal staining, 21% to 23% for Schirmer test, and 44% to 47% for osmolarity. The eye with a worse DED sign ranged between 36% (TBUT) and 80% (osmolarity) of participants.
conclusionsParticipants demonstrated moderate-to-good intereye agreement, yet a substantial portion showed clinically significant intereye differences in each sign. The worse eye was not the same eye in the majority during follow-up. These findings suggest considering signs from both eyes in future DED trials.
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.