ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Diagnostic Performance of Visionix VX120+ Platform for Dry Eye Screening.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Association between average screen time and dry eye disease: a secondary analysis of publicly available cross-sectional data.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of diagnosing dry eye disease (DED) by using the Visionix VX120+, to establish reference values for tear meniscus height (TMH) and non-invasive break-up time (NIBUT), and to compare the NIBUT measurements with the fluorescein tear break-up time (FBUT), Methods: fifty-eight subjects (34 dry eye and 24 control) were enrolled. The TMH, first NIBUT, and NIBUT50% were evaluated with the Visionix VX120+, and the FBUT was measured with a slit-lamp. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance, and the Bland-Altman method was performed to analyze the agreement.
resultsThe areas under the curve were 0.62, 0.60, and 0.70 for the TMH, first NIBUT, and NIBUT50%, respectively. The optimal cut-off values (sensitivity, specificity) were 0.29 (0.62, 0.67), 5.05 (0.85, 0.46), and 7.35 (0.65, 0.79) for the TMH, first NIBUT, and NIBUT50%, respectively. The mean differences (lower, upper limits of agreement) were -1.10 (-8.78, 6.58) and 1.55 (-5.68, 8.78) for the first NIBUT vs. FBUT and the NIBUT50% vs. FBUT, respectively.
conclusionsIn conclusion, the NIBUT50% can be a useful tool for dry eye screening, with acceptable values of sensitivity and specificity. First, the NIBUT and NIBUT50% should not be used interchangeably with the FBUT.
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.