Tsui Edmund, Jackson Nicholas J, Chen Judy L, Holland Gary N
Ocular Inflammatory Disease Center, The Department of Ophthalmology, UCLA Jules Stein Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California.
The Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Ophthalmol Sci. 2024 Dec 20;5(3):100690. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2024.100690. eCollection 2025 May-Jun.
The purposes of this study were to determine whether 2 laser flare photometry (LFP) devices produce similar results using various statistical techniques for determining a single, final LFP value for anterior chamber protein level; to determine whether a traditional technique adequately addresses outlier measurements; and to identify a simpler technique that produces LFP values similar to the traditional technique.
Prospective cross-sectional study.
Patients at a tertiary referral center who have histories of uveitis in 1 or both eyes.
Seven LFP measurements were obtained on 200 eyes (100 patients) using Kowa FM-500 and FM-700 laser flare photometers (Kowa Company, Ltd). For each device, the final LFP values were determined using 4 statistical outlier removal techniques on all measurements and by means and medians for all 7 and for the first 5 measurements. The final LFP values by each technique were compared between the devices. Using the FM-700, host- and disease-related factors (age, sex, laterality, uveitis history, uveitis activity, and LFP values) were evaluated for their effects on outliers. Laser flare photometry values by each technique were compared with the LFP value by the traditional technique. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to compare values.
Laser flare photometry values by various techniques.
The mean age of participants was 49.5 ± 19.1 years; 72% were female. Final LFP values did not vary meaningfully between the 2 devices for any technique (all ICCs: 0.81). With 5 measurements, no subgroup factors influenced the presence of outliers, and no final LFP values varied meaningfully from the final LFP value determined by the traditional technique (ICC: 0.97-1.00).
The automated mean provided by the FM-700 device based on 5 consecutive measurements may be a suitable final LFP value for use in patient care and clinical research.
Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
本研究的目的是确定两种激光散射光度测定法（LFP）设备使用各种统计技术来确定前房蛋白水平的单一最终LFP值时是否会产生相似的结果；确定传统技术是否能充分处理异常值测量；并确定一种能产生与传统技术相似的LFP值的更简单技术。
前瞻性横断面研究。
一家三级转诊中心有一只或两只眼睛葡萄膜炎病史的患者。
使用Kowa FM - 500和FM - 700激光散射光度计（Kowa公司）对200只眼睛（100名患者）进行了7次LFP测量。对于每种设备，通过对所有测量值使用4种统计异常值去除技术以及对所有7次测量值和前5次测量值的均值和中位数来确定最终LFP值。比较两种设备之间每种技术的最终LFP值。使用FM - 700，评估宿主和疾病相关因素（年龄、性别、眼别、葡萄膜炎病史、葡萄膜炎活动度和LFP值）对异常值的影响。将每种技术的激光散射光度测定值与传统技术的LFP值进行比较。使用组内相关系数（ICC）来比较数值。
各种技术的激光散射光度测定值。
参与者的平均年龄为49.5±19.1岁；72%为女性。对于任何技术，两种设备之间的最终LFP值均无显著差异（所有ICC：0.81）。进行5次测量时，没有亚组因素影响异常值的存在，并且没有最终LFP值与传统技术确定的最终LFP值有显著差异（ICC：0.97 - 1.00）。
基于连续5次测量的FM - 700设备提供的自动均值可能是用于患者护理和临床研究的合适最终LFP值。财务披露：专有或商业披露信息见本文末尾注释和披露部分。
