Cargando…

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

PURPOSE: To compare the in vivo precision of two commercially available point-of-care osmometers among normal subjects with no dry eye disease. METHODS: Twenty healthy adults with healthy ocular surfaces were evaluated by licensed eye care practitioners. All subjects had low Ocular Surface Disease I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nolfi, Jerry, Caffery, Barbara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5449174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28579744
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S135068
_version_ 1783239732390526976
author Nolfi, Jerry
Caffery, Barbara
author_facet Nolfi, Jerry
Caffery, Barbara
author_sort Nolfi, Jerry
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the in vivo precision of two commercially available point-of-care osmometers among normal subjects with no dry eye disease. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5449174
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54491742017-06-02 Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers Nolfi, Jerry Caffery, Barbara Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: To compare the in vivo precision of two commercially available point-of-care osmometers among normal subjects with no dry eye disease. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. Dove Medical Press 2017-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5449174/ /pubmed/28579744 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S135068 Text en © 2017 Nolfi and Caffery. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Nolfi, Jerry
Caffery, Barbara
Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers
title Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers
title_full Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers
title_fullStr Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers
title_full_unstemmed Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers
title_short Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers
title_sort randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5449174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28579744
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S135068
work_keys_str_mv AT nolfijerry randomizedcomparisonofinvivoperformanceoftwopointofcaretearfilmosmometers
AT cafferybarbara randomizedcomparisonofinvivoperformanceoftwopointofcaretearfilmosmometers