ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025
Real-world performance of the inflammadry test in dry eye diagnosis: an analysis of 1,515 patients.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological cleansing: Toward improving ocular surface surgical outcomes.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Peripheral Ulcerative Keratitis: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Multimodal Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Molecular landscape connecting complications of dry eye disease: mechanisms, therapeutic targets, biomarkers, and future innovations.International ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Clinical Benefits ofBiomedicines · 2026Article
- Association of the glucose metabolism continuum (fasting plasma glucose/HbA1c) with tear-film stability and secretion: ocular surface evidence across non-diabetes, prediabetes, and diabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the diagnostic performance of the InflammaDry test in diagnosing dry eye disease (DED) using different diagnostic criteria and across varying severities.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on 1,515 patients. Subjects were categorized into three groups: Group (1) DED based on Dry Eye Workshop-II (DEWS-II): Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) ≥ 13 and at least one abnormal clinical sign (non-invasive tear break-up time [NIBUT] < 10 s, osmolarity > 308 mOsm/L, or corneal/conjunctival staining). Group (2) DED based on criteria used in prior clinical trials: OSDI > 13, Schirmer < 10 mm in 5 min, NIBUT < 10 s, and keratoconjunctival staining. Group (3) Healthy controls: OSDI ≤ 7, NIBUT ≥ 10 s, Schirmer ≥ 10 mm, and no keratoconjunctival staining. DED severity was classified using the ODISSEY European Consensus Group's definitions into severe and non-severe. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated for both criteria.
results1,363 patients were included in Group 1, 401 in Group 2, and 152 in Group 3. Sensitivity was 81.30% in the population diagnosed using previous clinical trial criteria but decreased to 69.99% when applying the DEWS-II criteria. Specificity was 38.16% in both groups, with 409/467 false negatives respectively.
conclusionInflammaDry shows good sensitivity in detecting DED in highly symptomatic cases with multiple clinical signs, but its performance decreases when broader criteria like DEWS-II are used. While valuable for detecting inflammation, routine use for DED diagnosis may lead to false negatives, especially in milder cases.
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.