| Title |
Tear film osmolarity and dry eye disease: a review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s95242 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard Potvin, Sarah Makari, Christopher J Rapuano |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature regarding the use of tear osmolarity as a physiological marker to diagnose, grade severity, and track therapeutic response in dry eye disease (DED). In addition, to review the evidence for the role of tear osmolarity in the pathophysiology of DED and ocular surface disease. A literature review of all publications after the year 2000, which included the keywords "tear osmolarity", was conducted. Relevant articles were graded according to quality of evidence and research, using the University of Michigan Practice Guideline and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) rating systems. Articles were further categorized by the nature of any reported financial support and by the overall impression they provided related to tear osmolarity. A total of 164 articles were identified as relevant to the search criteria, although some were editorials, and some were written in a foreign language. Of the total, it was possible to grade 159, and an overall impression was generated for 163. A positive impression of tear osmolarity in DED diagnosis was evident in 72% (117/163) of all articles, with a neutral impression in a further 21% (35/163); 7% had a negative impression. The percentage of positive impressions appeared independent of the quality of research; 73% (38/52) of articles graded high/moderate quality supported the use of tear film osmolarity measurement in DED diagnosis. Impressions were also independent of the source of financial support, with 72% (75/104) of independent studies positive. The literature broadly supports the use of tear film osmolarity as an objective numerical measure for diagnosing, grading severity, and managing treatment of DED. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 181 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 12% |
| Researcher | 20 | 11% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 10% |
| Other | 37 | 20% |
| Unknown | 46 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 3% |
| Engineering | 5 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 54 | 30% |
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 05 October 2016.
All research outputs
#4,793,346
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#399
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,322
of 294,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#9
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 294,808 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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.