Strip meniscometry tube: a rapid method for assessing aqueous deficient dry eye.
SMTube
aqueous deficient dry eye
fluorophotometry
tear turnover rate
Journal
Clinical & experimental optometry
ISSN: 1444-0938
Titre abrégé: Clin Exp Optom
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703442
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
received:
19
02
2019
revised:
30
05
2019
accepted:
02
06
2019
pubmed:
5
7
2019
medline:
4
8
2021
entrez:
5
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of strip meniscometry tube (SMTube) for the quantitative assessment of the tear film, by comparing it to measurements of tear turnover rate using the gold standard method, fluorophotometry. Also, to determine the viability of this test as a diagnostic tool for aqueous deficient dry eye (ADDE), to inform appropriate clinical management. Thirty-two participants (15 ADDE; 17 non-ADDE) were recruited. Tear turnover rate of the right eye of each subject was conducted with an automated scanning fluorophotometer and SMTube test was conducted. Tear meniscus height was assessed using a slitlamp biomicroscope and eyepiece graticule. Significant differences between the ADDE and the non-ADDE groups were found for all measures: tear turnover rate 7.9 ± 1.8 versus 19.6 ± 5.9 per cent/minute (p < 0.001), SMTube 3.2 ± 1.1 versus 5.7 ± 2.3 mm (p = 0.001) and tear meniscus height 0.18 ± 0.05 versus 0.23 ± 0.04 mm (p = 0.004). Moreover, significant correlations were found between tear turnover rate and SMTube (rho = 0.78, p < 0.001), tear turnover rate and tear meniscus height (rho = 0.54, p < 0.001) and SMTube and tear meniscus height (rho = 0.47, p < 0.01). Using a receiver operating characteristic curve, SMTube showed a sensitivity of 67 per cent and a specificity of 88 per cent for the diagnosis of ADDE. Given its performance, availability, speed and the fact it is relatively cheap, the study shows that the SMTube can be used as an alternative to fluorophotometry to assess tear production. It appears from the results that SMTube is a viable minimally invasive test for the diagnosis of ADDE.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of strip meniscometry tube (SMTube) for the quantitative assessment of the tear film, by comparing it to measurements of tear turnover rate using the gold standard method, fluorophotometry. Also, to determine the viability of this test as a diagnostic tool for aqueous deficient dry eye (ADDE), to inform appropriate clinical management.
METHODS
Thirty-two participants (15 ADDE; 17 non-ADDE) were recruited. Tear turnover rate of the right eye of each subject was conducted with an automated scanning fluorophotometer and SMTube test was conducted. Tear meniscus height was assessed using a slitlamp biomicroscope and eyepiece graticule.
RESULTS
Significant differences between the ADDE and the non-ADDE groups were found for all measures: tear turnover rate 7.9 ± 1.8 versus 19.6 ± 5.9 per cent/minute (p < 0.001), SMTube 3.2 ± 1.1 versus 5.7 ± 2.3 mm (p = 0.001) and tear meniscus height 0.18 ± 0.05 versus 0.23 ± 0.04 mm (p = 0.004). Moreover, significant correlations were found between tear turnover rate and SMTube (rho = 0.78, p < 0.001), tear turnover rate and tear meniscus height (rho = 0.54, p < 0.001) and SMTube and tear meniscus height (rho = 0.47, p < 0.01). Using a receiver operating characteristic curve, SMTube showed a sensitivity of 67 per cent and a specificity of 88 per cent for the diagnosis of ADDE.
CONCLUSION
Given its performance, availability, speed and the fact it is relatively cheap, the study shows that the SMTube can be used as an alternative to fluorophotometry to assess tear production. It appears from the results that SMTube is a viable minimally invasive test for the diagnosis of ADDE.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
469-473Informations de copyright
© 2019 Optometry Australia.
Références
Lemp MA, Baudouin C, Baum J et al. The definition and classification of dry eye disease: report of the definition and classification subcommittee of the international dry eye WorkShop. Ocul Surf 2007; 5: 75-92.
Messmer EM. The pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of dry eye disease. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2015; 112: 71-81.
Rolando M, Zierhut M. The ocular surface and tear film and their dysfunction in dry eye disease. Surv Ophthalmol 2001; 45: 203-210.
de Paiva CS, Pflugfelder SC. Tear clearance implications for ocular surface health. Exp Eye Res 2004; 78: 395-407.
Ubels JL, Foley KM, Rismondo V. Retinol secretion by the lacrimal gland. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1986; 27: 1261-1268.
Tomlinson A, Khanal S. Assessment of tear film dynamics: quantification approach. Ocul Surf 2005; 3: 81-95.
Khanal S, Tomlinson A, McFadyen A et al. Dry eye diagnosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 1407-1414.
Tsubota K. Tear dynamics and dry eye. Prog Retin Eye Res 1998; 17: 565-596.
Cho P, Yap M. Schirmer test I a review. Optom Vis Sci 1993; 70: 152-156.
Mishima S, Gasset A, Klyce SD Jr et al. Determination of tear volume and tear flow. Invest Ophthalmol 1966; 5: 264-276.
Tomlinson A, Blades KJ, Pearce EI. What does the phenol red thread test actually measure? Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 142-146.
McCann LC, Tomlinson A, Pearce EI et al. A clinical alternative to fluorophotometry for measuring tear production in the diagnosis of dry eye. Cornea 2010; 29: 745-750.
Lucca JA, Nunez JN, Farris RL. A comparison of diagnostic tests for keratoconjunctivitis sicca: lactoplate, Schirmer, and tear osmolarity. CLAO J 1990; 16: 109-112.
Pearce EI, Keenan BP, McRory C. An improved fluorophotometric method for tear turnover assessment. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 30-36.
Macri A, Rolando M, Pflugfelder S. A standardized visual scale for evaluation of tear fluorescein clearance. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1338-1343.
Dogru M, Ishida K, Matsumoto Y et al. Strip meniscometry: a new and simple method of tear meniscus evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 1895-1901.
Xu KP, Yagi Y, Toda I et al. Tear function index. A new measure of dry eye. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 84-88.
Tomlinson A, Khanal S, Ramaesh K et al. Tear film osmolarity: determination of a referent for dry eye diagnosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 4309-4315.
Cerretani CF, Radke CJ. Tear dynamics in healthy and dry eyes. Curr Eye Res 2014; 39: 580-595.
Ibrahim OM, Dogru M, Ward SK et al. The efficacy, sensitivity, and specificity of strip meniscometry in conjunction with tear function tests in the assessment of tear meniscus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 2194-2198.
Tomlinson A, Doane MG, McFadyen A. Inputs and outputs of the lacrimal system: review of production and evaporative loss. Ocul Surf 2009; 7: 186-198.
Khanal S, Tomlinson A, Diaper C. Tear physiology of aqueous deficiency and evaporative dry eye. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 1235-1240.
Gothwal VK, Pesudovs K, Wright TA et al. McMonnies questionnaire: enhancing screening for dry eye syndromes with Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 1401-1407.
Santodomingo-Rubido J, Wolffsohn JS, Gilmartin B. Comparison between graticule and image capture assessment of lower tear film meniscus height. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2006; 29: 169-173.
Doughty MJ, Fonn D, Richter D et al. A patient questionnaire approach to estimating the prevalence of dry eye symptoms in patients presenting to optometric practices across Canada. Optom Vis Sci 1997; 74: 624-631.
Cedarstaff TH, Tomlinson A. Human tear volume, quality and evaporation: a comparison of Schirmer, tear break-up time and resistance hygrometry techniques. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1983; 3: 239-245.
Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R et al. TFOS DEWS II diagnostic methodology report. Ocul Surf 2017; 15: 539-574.
Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK et al. The performance of the contact lens dry eye questionnaire as a screening survey for contact lens-related dry eye. Cornea 2002; 21: 469-475.
Nichols KK, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. The repeatability of clinical measurements of dry eye. Cornea 2004; 23: 272-285.
Bron AJ, Evans VE, Smith JA. Grading of corneal and conjunctival staining in the context of other dry eye tests. Cornea 2003; 22: 640-650.
Sullivan DA. Sex hormones and Sjogren's syndrome. J Rheumatol Suppl 1997; 50: 17-32.
Xuan J, Shen L, Malyavantham K et al. Temporal histological changes in lacrimal and major salivary glands in mouse models of Sjogren's syndrome. BMC Oral Health 2013; 13: 51.
Lemp MA, Crews LA, Born AJ et al. Distribution of aqueous-deficient and evaporative dry eye in a clinic-based patient cohort: a retrospective study. Cornea 2012; 31: 472-478.
Bron AJ, Smith JA, Calonge M. Methodologies to diagnose and monitor dry eye disease: report of the diagnostic methodology subcommittee of the International dry eye WorkShop. Ocul Surf 2007; 5: 108-152.
Kim MK, Ji YW, Lee HK et al. Efficacy of strip Meniscometry for dry eye syndrome diagnosis. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2016; 57: 1521-1526.
Savini G, Barboni P, Zanini M. Tear meniscus evaluation by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2006; 37: 112-118.
Pearce EI, Tomlinson A, Craig JP et al. Tear protein levels following punctal plugging. Adv Exp Med Biol 1998; 438: 669-674.
Shinzawa M, Dogru M, Miyasaka K et al. Application of CASIA SS-1000 optical coherence tomography tear meniscus imaging in testing the efficacy of new strip meniscometry in dry eye diagnosis. Eye Contact Lens 2018; 44: 44-49.