↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Tear volume estimation using a modified Schirmer test: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial comparing 3% diquafosol ophthalmic solution and artificial tears in dry eye patients

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Tear volume estimation using a modified Schirmer test: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial comparing 3% diquafosol ophthalmic solution and artificial tears in dry eye patients
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s105275
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hideki Miyake, Yuri Kawano, Hiroshi Tanaka, Akihiro Iwata, Takahiro Imanaka, Masatsugu Nakamura

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using a modified Schirmer test to determine the increase in tear volume after administration of 3% diquafosol ophthalmic solution (diquafosol 3%) in dry eye patients. A randomized, multicenter, prospective, double-blind clinical study recruited 50 qualified subjects. They received diquafosol 3% in one eye and artificial tears in the other eye. The study protocol comprised a screening and treatment procedure completed within 1 day. The Schirmer test was performed on closed eyes three times a day. The primary efficacy end points were the second Schirmer test scores 10 minutes after the single dose. Secondary end points were the third Schirmer test scores 3 hours and 40 minutes after the single dose and the symptom scores prior to the second and third Schirmer tests. According to the Schirmer test, 10 minutes after administration, diquafosol 3% significantly increased tear volume compared to artificial tears. Diquafosol 3% and artificial tears both showed significant improvements in the symptom scores compared to baseline. However, there was no significant difference in the symptoms score between diquafosol 3% and artificial tears. The modified Schirmer test can detect a minute change in tear volume in dry eye patients. These findings will be useful in the diagnosis of dry eye, assessment of treatment benefits in daily clinical practice, and the development of possible tear-secreting compounds for dry eye.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Postgraduate 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 19 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#3,207
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,270
of 311,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#77
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.