ReviewEye (London, England)2026
A scoping review of integrated blink analysis technologies for ocular surface diseases.
Review in Eye (London, England), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this review is to describe integrated technologies for blink analysis and their utility in evaluating ocular surface diseases. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from January 1, 2000, to August 17, 2025. Search terms included "Eye Blink", "Blink", "Blinking", "Device", "Technology", "Appliance", and "Application". We included studies describing the use of integrated technologies to capture and analyse blink metrics for the evaluation of dry eye disease and other ocular surface conditions. Publications describing technical engineering aspects or technologies without evaluation of ocular surface diseases were excluded. Findings from relevant studies were extracted and compared. Of 3275 identified records, 42 met inclusion criteria. We evaluated the use of 9 technologies. These comprised desk-bound devices(Intelligent Vision Sensor, LipiView™, and IDRA) , wearable devices (Wink Glass, Blink-sensing Glasses), and smartphone or computer applications(HealthyRoad, DryEyeRhythm, Dry eye or not? and EyeScore) . LipiView™ and IDRA were most commonly studied. Blink rate and partial blink rate were the most commonly analysed parameters, and DED was the most commonly evaluated ocular surface condition. Consistent with existing literature, studies demonstrated associations between increased partial blink rates and ocular surface compromise. There was however heterogeneity in methods of blink analysis and insufficient validation of the accuracy and diagnostic ability of measured blink parameters for ocular surface conditions. Integrated blink analysis technologies are promising for the assessment of ocular surface diseases. Further studies are needed to evaluate the validity, reliability, and clinical utility of these technologies.
Identifiers
42834135What 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.