ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Electroconductivity of Saliva as a Diagnostic Tool for Dry Eye Disease: A Case-Control Study.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of body fluid electroconductivity for dry eye disease (DED) and compare its accuracy with commonly used DED tests. Methods: Individuals with dry eye (n = 36) and controls (n = 26) were enrolled in this case-control prospective study. Electroconductivity measurements were performed on blood, serum, tears, urine, and saliva. Dry eye assessments included tear film breakup time (TBUT) and Schirmer test (Schirmer), with symptoms evaluated using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). Blood and urine analyses were performed to assess the baseline systemic profiles of both groups. Results: Among all body fluids, saliva (saliva electroconductivity [ESaliva]) showed the most significant differences in electroconductivity between controls and dry eye individuals (2514.02 ± 329.18 vs. 3262.00 ± 992.47 µS/cm, P < 0.001). ESaliva showed robust diagnostic performance (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.800), comparable to TBUT (AUC = 0.693, P = 0.103) and superior to Schirmer (AUC = 0.536, P < 0.001). OSDI showed a moderate correlation with ESaliva (r = 0.43, P < 0.001), representing the strongest association, followed by TBUT (r = -0.26, P = 0.004) and Schirmer (r = -0.09, P = 0.313). Cross-validation procedure identified ESaliva cutoffs of 2373 µS/cm (95% confidence interval [CI], 2340-2456) for low-to-moderate and 2880 µS/cm (95% CI, 2845-2931) for moderate-to-high DED risk. Net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement analyses confirmed ESaliva's superior predictive ability. A single cutoff of 2880 µS/cm yielded 64% sensitivity and 89% specificity for DED prediction. Conclusions: ESaliva effectively distinguishes patients with DED and exhibits superior diagnostic performance. Translational Relevance: ESaliva: offers a noninvasive and self-assessable tool for DED diagnosis.
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.