ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2024
Intra- and interobserver reliability of ocular surface analyzer LacryDiag
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Repeatability and Reproducibility of the Dry Eye Analyzer in Participants With and Without Symptoms of Dry Eye.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo invastigate intra- and interobserver reliability of interferometry, tear meniscus height (TMH) measurement and meibography (MBG) of an ocular surface analyzer, LacryDiag (Quantel Medical, France).
methodsFive consecutive measurements and subsequent analysis of interferometry, TMH, and MBG were recorded by two examiners using the LacryDiag. To assess intra- and interobserver reliability, we used Cohen's kappa for categorical variables (interferometry), or intraclass correlation coefficient for continuous variables (TMH, MBG).
resultsThirty eyes of 30 examinees were included. For both observers, there was excellent intraobserver reliability for MBG (0.955 and 0.970 for observer 1 and 2, respectively). Intraobserver reliability for observer 1 was substantial for interferometry (0.799), and excellent for TMH (0.863). Reliability for observer 2 was moderate for interferometry (0.535) and fair to good for TMH (0.431). Interobserver reliability was poor for interferometry (0.074) and fair to good for TMH (0.680) and MBG (0.414).
conclusionLacryDiag ocular surface analyzer in our study proves to be a reliable noninvasive tool for the evaluation of TMH and MBG. As for interferometry, poor interobserver reliability, fair to good intraobserver reliability for observer 1, and moderate for observer 2, leave room for improvement.
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.