Suppr超能文献

两种即时检测泪膜渗透压计体内性能的随机比较。

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

作者信息

Nolfi Jerry, Caffery Barbara

机构信息

Toronto Eye Care Optometric Clinic, Toronto, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Clin Ophthalmol. 2017 May 22;11:945-950. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S135068. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

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 (<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.

摘要

目的

比较两种市售即时护理渗透压计在无干眼症的正常受试者中的体内测量精度。

方法

20名眼表健康的成年人由持牌眼科护理从业者进行评估。所有受试者的眼表疾病指数得分较低(<5),泪膜破裂时间正常(>10秒),且无角膜荧光素染色迹象。使用两种渗透压计(TearLab渗透压系统(TearLab)和I-Med i-Pen(i-Pen))分别对每只眼睛进行连续5次泪液渗透压测量,每个设备总共进行200次测量。渗透压计的性能通过特异性(通过临床临界值(308 mOsm/L)及以下的渗透压数据百分比估算)和精度(以每个受试者的标准差表示)来确定。此外,为评估分析性能,在患者测试的每一天,按照制造商说明在TearLab上测试标准化渗透压质量控制溶液(338 mOsm/L)。i-Pen制造商说明既未规定也未推荐质量控制程序。

结果

20名受试者的平均年龄为27±8岁(范围:19 - 48岁,16名女性,4名男性)。在2个月的测试中,TearLab报告的质量控制溶液分析性能为335.8±4.2 mOsm/L,变异系数为1.3%。在受试者队列中,TearLab测量值的90.9%在正常范围≤308 mOsm/L内。i-Pen报告所有测量值的37.5%在正常范围内。TearLab的受试者内平均渗透压为295.4±8.6 mOsm/L,显著低于i-Pen且变异性更小,i-Pen报告的平均值为319.4±20.3 mOsm/L(<0.001)。当按受试者对测量值进行分组时,TearLab准确识别出100%的受试者为正常,而i-Pen仅准确识别出15%的受试者为正常。

结论

在这项针对正常、健康的非干眼受试者的两种即时护理渗透压计的随机对照研究中,TearLab渗透压系统在准确性、精度以及与临床解释的一致性方面均符合制造商的宣称。i-Pen缺乏足够的性能来区分有无干眼症的受试者。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9356/5449174/49bfb2688b07/opth-11-945Fig1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验