ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024
High-Tech Parameters for the Evaluation of Signs and Symptoms of Dry Eye Disease: Identification of Clinical Cut-Offs and Agreement with Low-Tech Tests.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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.
- Dry Eye Disease: From Causes to Patient Care and Clinical Collaboration-A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHigh-tech devices for the assessment of dry eye disease (DED) are increasingly available. However, the agreement between high- and low-tech parameters has been poorly explored to date. Trying to fill these gaps, we conducted a post hoc analysis on a recently published retrospective study on patients with DED receiving both low- and high-tech (Keratograph
methodsSix clinical questions were defined by the authors, considering literature gaps and their clinical experience, namely: (1) are NIKBUT-i and T-BUT interchangeable parameters? (2) What was the correlation between low- and high-tech parameters in untreated and treated patients with DED? (3) What was the correlation between signs and symptoms at baseline and during/after treatment? (4) Which parameters were better associated with symptoms? And with symptoms change over time? (5) What was the performance of NIKBUT-i and T-BUT in detecting clinically relevant changes? (6) What was the clinical advantage of adding other high- and low-tech parameters, respectively, to NIKBUT-i and T-BUT?
resultsLow-tech measures were the best descriptors of the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) at baseline. In contrast, high-tech assessments demonstrate better performance in detecting changes over time. The distribution of NIKBUT-i data was more dispersed than TBUT both at baseline and follow-up. At a fixed specificity of 80%, the sensitivity in detecting clinically relevant ameliorations of symptoms was 42% for NIKBUT-i and 25% for T-BUT. A battery of high-tech tests could detect 90% of clinical amelioration, compared with 45% with low-tech tests (p < 0.001). Correlation between low- and high-tech parameters in both treated and untreated patients is lacking.
conclusionsLow-tech measures are adequate for diagnostic purposes in DED, whereas high-tech showed better performances at follow-up, particularly when different tests are combined. Overall, poor interchangeability among parameters and agreement with symptoms was reported both with high- and low-tech assessments.
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.