↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Randomized, masked, in vitro comparison of three commercially available tear film osmometers

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Randomized, masked, in vitro comparison of three commercially available tear film osmometers
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s127035
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guillermo Rocha, Eric Gulliver, Armand Borovik, Clara Chan

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the precision and accuracy of commercially available tear film osmometers. Contrived tear solution target values representing the physiological range of tear osmolarity (normal eyes 297 mOsm/L, moderately dry eyes 342 mOsm/L, and severe dry eyes 383 mOsm/L) were constructed using a mix of mono- and divalent electrolytes, metabolites, serum albumin, and pH balanced to 7.4. Solution values were randomized and masked from the investigators during testing. Osmometers (Wescor 5520 Vapro Pressure Osmometer: device A, TearLab Osmolarity System: device B, and i-Med Pharma i-Pen: device C) were calibrated according to manufacturer instructions. Each level was tested 64× on each osmometer across two sites. Accuracy was reported as a correlation coefficient against expected linear dilutions, precision was calculated as percent coefficient of variation. Device A reported a correlation with known solutions of r(2)=0.98, with averages of 305.6±4.0, 352.2±5.5, and 389.8±4.0 mOsm/L, and coefficient of variations (CVs) of 1.3%, 1.6%, and 1.0%, respectively. Device B reported an r(2)=0.96, with averages of 300.6±3.7, 341.4±7.9, and 376.8±5.1 mOsm/L, and CVs of 1.2%, 2.3%, and 1.4%, respectively. Device C reported an r(2)=0.03, with averages of 336.4±21.5, 342.0±20.7, and 345.7±22.0 mOsm/L, and CVs of 6.4%, 6.1%, and 6.4%, respectively. In this randomized, masked, in vitro study, device A and device B had significantly better accuracy and precision in measuring osmolarity of contrived tear solutions of known target values compared to device C. Device C showed insufficient performance to accurately and precisely delineate osmolarity levels in the physiological range. Furthermore, in vivo studies would be required to compare performance in human subjects.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,918,751
of 16,775,501 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#173
of 2,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,559
of 271,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#5
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,775,501 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,389 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 271,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.