Advertisement

Agreement and repeatability of objective systems for assessment of the tear film

  • Joaquín Fernández
  • Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo
  • Javier Martínez
  • Ana Tauste
  • Javier García-Montesinos
  • David P. Piñero
Cornea

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the agreement and repeatability of two objective systems for measuring the tear film stability.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of the tear film stability of 99 healthy right eyes measured with a videokeratoscope (VK) and the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS, Visiometrics). Two consecutive measures were taken with both systems, with an interval of 10 min between them. Variables included in the study were first and mean non-invasive break-up times (NIBUT and MNIBUT) measured with VK, and mean and standard deviation of the optical scattering index (OSIm and OSIsd) measured with OQAS. The agreement and repeatability of grading scales provided by both devices were also evaluated using the Cohen’s k with quadratic weights. The Ocular Surface Disease index (OSDI) questionnaire was also passed out to all subjects. Correlations and associations between subjective and objective metrics were analyzed.

Results

Significant differences were found between consecutive measurements of NIBUT (p = 0.04) and MNIBUT (p = 0.01), but not for OSIm (p = 0.11) and OSIsd (p = 0.50). Grading scales resulted in fair (k = 0.20) or poor agreement (k = 0.04) between systems depending if the first or second trial was considered. The repeatability of the grading scale was good for OQAS (k = 0.59) and fair for VK (k = 0.37). No significant correlations or associations were found between OSDI and any of the metrics obtained with both devices (p ≥ 0.36).

Conclusions

The two devices evaluated cannot be used interchangeably for the assessment of tear film stability. Good intrasession repeatability was obtained for tear film grading of the OQAS whereas it was fair for VK.

Keywords

Tear film stability Objective systems Ocular scatter index Non-invasive break-up time Laser refractive surgery 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements). Dr. Joaquín Fernández has participated as invited speaker in events organized by Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany. Remaining authors declare non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the local ethics committee of research and was performed in adherence to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Torricelli AM, Bechara SJ, Wilson SE (2014) Screening of refractive surgery candidates for LASIK and PRK. Cornea 33:1051–1055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levitt AE, Galor A, Weiss JS et al (2015) Chronic dry eye symptoms after LASIK: parallels and lessons to be learned from other persistent post-operative pain disorders. Mol Pain 11:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jabbur NS, Sakatani K, O’Brien TP (2004) Survey of complications and recommendations for management in dissatisfied patients seeking a consultation after refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:1867–1874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li M, Zhao J, Shen Y et al (2013) Comparison of dry eye and corneal sensitivity between small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond LASIK for myopia. PLoS One 8:e77797CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hu L, Xie W, Liu J et al (2015) Tear menisci and corneal subbasal nerve density in patients after laser in situ keratomileusis. Eye Contact Lens Sci Clin Pract 41:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tao A, Shen M, Wang J et al (2010) Upper and lower tear menisci after laser in situ keratomileusis. Eye Contact Lens 36:81–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nichols KK, Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL (2004) The lack of association between signs and symptoms in patients with dry eye disease. Cornea 23:762–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tuisku IS, Lindbohm N, Wilson SE, Tervo TM (2007) Dry eye and corneal sensitivity after high myopic LASIK. J Refract Surg 23:338–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farahi A, Hashemi H, Mehravaran S et al (2014) Tear function evaluation in candidates of corneal laser refractive surgery for myopia. Eye Contact Lens 40:91–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shen Z, Shi K, Yu Y et al (2016) Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for myopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 11:e0158176CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zeev MS, Miller DD, Latkany R (2014) Diagnosis of dry eye disease and emerging technologies. Clin Ophthalmol 8:581–590PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Artal P, Benito A, Pérez GM et al (2011) An objective scatter index based on double-pass retinal images of a point source to classify cataracts. PLoS One 6:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan CH, Labbe A, Liang Q et al (2015) Dynamic change of optical quality in patients with dry eye disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56:2848–2854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schiffman RM (2000) Reliability and validity of the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophthalmol 118:615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller KL, Walt JG, Mink DR, et al (2010) Minimal clinically important difference for the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophthalmol (Chicago, Ill 1960) 128:94–101Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S et al (2011) Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64:96–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Statistical methods in medical research. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xue AL, Downie LE, Ormonde SE, Craig JP (2017) A comparison of the self-reported dry eye practices of New Zealand optometrists and ophthalmologists. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 37:191–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hong J, Sun X, Wei A et al (2013) Assessment of tear film stability in dry eye with a newly developed keratograph. Cornea 32:716–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hong J, Liu Z, Hua J et al (2014) Evaluation of age-related changes in noninvasive tear breakup time. Optom Vis Sci 91:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bhandari V, Reddy JK, Relekar K et al (2016) Non-invasive assessment of tear film stability with a novel corneal topographer in Indian subjects. Int Ophthalmol 36:781–790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lan W, Lin L, Yang X, Yu M (2014) Automatic noninvasive tear breakup time (TBUT) and conventional fluorescent TBUT. Optom Vis Sci 91:1412–1418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abdelfattah NS, Dastiridou A, Sadda SR, Lee OL (2015) Noninvasive imaging of tear film dynamics in eyes with ocular surface disease. Cornea 34(Suppl 1):S48–S52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cox SM, Nichols KK, Nichols JJ (2015) Agreement between automated and traditional measures of tear film breakup. Optom Vis Sci 92:e257–e263CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tian L, Qu JH, Zhang XY, Sun XG (2016) Repeatability and reproducibility of noninvasive keratograph 5m measurements in patients with dry eye disease. J Ophthalmol 2016Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang X, Lu X, Yang J, et al (2016) Evaluation of dry eye and meibomian gland dysfunction in teenagers with myopia through noninvasive keratograph. J Ophthalmol 2016:6761206Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Best N, Drury L, Wolffsohn JS (2012) Clinical evaluation of the oculus keratograph. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 35:171–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Caglar C, Senel E, Sabancilar E, Durmus M (2017) Reduced ocular surface disease index (OSDI) scores in patients with isotretinoin treatment. Int Ophthalmol 37:197–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joaquín Fernández
    • 1
    • 2
  • Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo
    • 1
  • Javier Martínez
    • 1
  • Ana Tauste
    • 1
  • Javier García-Montesinos
    • 1
  • David P. Piñero
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology (Qvision)Vithas Virgen del Mar HospitalAlmeríaSpain
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyTorrecárdenas Hospital ComplexAlmeríaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Optics, Pharmacology and AnatomyUniversity of AlicanteAlicanteSpain
  4. 4.Department of Ophthalmology (OFTALMAR)Vithas Medimar International HospitalAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations