We have located links that may give you full text access.
Reproducibility in measuring tear samples using a freezing point depression osmometer.
Clinical & Experimental Optometry : Journal of the Australian Optometrical Association 2019 Februrary 29
BACKGROUND: Hyperosmolarity of tear fluid has been recognised as a common feature of all types of dry eye disease. This study was designed to assess the inter-session reproducibility of a freezing point depression osmometer (Fiske 110) as the most common and precise way of measuring osmolality, by using two different volumes of tear samples on healthy subjects, and to determine the possible applications of this device in tear film research and clinical practice.
METHODS: Measurements were made by using the Fiske 110 osmometer under two different tear sample volumes (4 μl and 2 μl). In both cases, samples were diluted in purified water to obtain the 20 μl required by the device to perform the measurement (1:4 and 1:9 dilutions, respectively). Inter-session reproducibility was determined in two groups of 40 healthy subjects, in two sessions, one week apart. In each group, one of the two different tear sample volumes was used to determine the reproducibility of each technique.
RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between the measurements obtained in the two sessions using the 4 μl (paired t-test, p = 0.772; mean difference ± SD = -0.85 ± 18.77 mOsm/L; 95 per cent limits of agreement [LoAs] = -37.64/+35.94) or the 2 μl volume sample (paired t-test, p = 0.054; mean difference ± SD = 9.27 ± 29.44 mOsm/L; 95 per cent LoAs = -48.43/+66.97).
CONCLUSIONS: Whereas both techniques show an acceptable inter-session reproducibility, the bias range with the present protocol was higher using the 2 μl tear sample volume than the 4 μl one. Therefore, it seems that the diluted 4 μl sample was the only dilution that could be acceptable for use in routine clinical practice for tear film analysis.
METHODS: Measurements were made by using the Fiske 110 osmometer under two different tear sample volumes (4 μl and 2 μl). In both cases, samples were diluted in purified water to obtain the 20 μl required by the device to perform the measurement (1:4 and 1:9 dilutions, respectively). Inter-session reproducibility was determined in two groups of 40 healthy subjects, in two sessions, one week apart. In each group, one of the two different tear sample volumes was used to determine the reproducibility of each technique.
RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between the measurements obtained in the two sessions using the 4 μl (paired t-test, p = 0.772; mean difference ± SD = -0.85 ± 18.77 mOsm/L; 95 per cent limits of agreement [LoAs] = -37.64/+35.94) or the 2 μl volume sample (paired t-test, p = 0.054; mean difference ± SD = 9.27 ± 29.44 mOsm/L; 95 per cent LoAs = -48.43/+66.97).
CONCLUSIONS: Whereas both techniques show an acceptable inter-session reproducibility, the bias range with the present protocol was higher using the 2 μl tear sample volume than the 4 μl one. Therefore, it seems that the diluted 4 μl sample was the only dilution that could be acceptable for use in routine clinical practice for tear film analysis.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app