↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s135068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jerry Nolfi, Barbara Caffery

Abstract

To compare the in vivo precision of two commercially available point-of-care osmometers among normal subjects with no dry eye disease. Twenty healthy adults with healthy ocular surfaces were evaluated by licensed eye care practitioners. All subjects had low Ocular Surface Disease Index score (<5), normal tear breakup time (>10 seconds), and no evidence of corneal fluorescein staining. Five consecutive measurements of tear osmolarity were measured on each eye using each of the two osmometers: the TearLab Osmolarity System (TearLab) and the I-Med i-Pen (i-Pen), for a total of 200 measurements per device. Performance of the osmometers was determined by specificity, estimated by the percentage of osmolarity data at or below the clinical cutoff (308 mOsm/L) and precision, and represented by the standard deviation per subject. In addition, to assess analytical performance, on each day of patient testing, standardized osmolarity quality control solutions (338 mOsm/L) were tested on the TearLab per manufacturer instructions. i-Pen manufacturer instructions do not neither provide for, nor recommend quality control procedures. The mean age of the 20 subjects was 27±8 years (range: 19-48 years, 16 females, four males). Over 2 months of testing, the TearLab reported analytical performance on quality control solutions of 335.8±4.2 mOsm/L with a coefficient of variation of 1.3%. In the subject cohort, 90.9% of TearLab measurements were in the normal range ≤308 mOsm/L. The i-Pen reported 37.5% of all measurements in the normal range. The average intra-subject osmolarity of the TearLab was 295.4±8.6 mOsm/L, which was significantly lower and less variable than the i-Pen, which reported an average of 319.4±20.3 mOsm/L (P<0.001). When the measurements were grouped by subject, the TearLab accurately identified 100% of subjects as normal while the i-Pen accurately identified only 15% of subjects as normal. In this randomized comparative study of two point-of-care osmometers among normal, healthy non-dry eye subjects, the TearLab Osmolarity System demonstrated accuracy, precision, and agreement with clinical interpretation in line with the manufacturer claims. The i-Pen lacked sufficient performance to delineate subjects with and without dry eye disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 23%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#822
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,278
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#20
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 324,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.