A Comparison of Physical Characteristics in Different Brands and Staining Techniques in a Brand of Lissamine Green Strips.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Neema Ghorbani-Mojarrad, James S Wolffsohn, Jennifer P Craig, Debarun Dutta, Byki Huntjens, Raheel Hussain, Zarghona Khan, Shoaib Raja, Mohammed Ibrahim, Thomas Godfrey, Alison Alderson, Katharine Evans, Mahesh Joshi, Carole Maldonado-Codina, Manbir Nagra, Elidh Martin, Laura Sweeney, Louise Terry, Dean Dunning, Marta Vianya-Estopa
{"title":"A Comparison of Physical Characteristics in Different Brands and Staining Techniques in a Brand of Lissamine Green Strips.","authors":"Neema Ghorbani-Mojarrad, James S Wolffsohn, Jennifer P Craig, Debarun Dutta, Byki Huntjens, Raheel Hussain, Zarghona Khan, Shoaib Raja, Mohammed Ibrahim, Thomas Godfrey, Alison Alderson, Katharine Evans, Mahesh Joshi, Carole Maldonado-Codina, Manbir Nagra, Elidh Martin, Laura Sweeney, Louise Terry, Dean Dunning, Marta Vianya-Estopa","doi":"10.3390/jcm14062022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Backgrounds/Objectives:</b> The aim of this study was to compare differences in the physical characteristics of lissamine green (LG) strips and the outcomes of using different staining techniques. <b>Methods:</b> Two separate complementary investigations were conducted. Physical study: Differences between four LG strips were evaluated in terms of material, dye concentration, and dye absorption. In vivo study: Bulbar conjunctival staining was compared for four application methods of I-DEW LG strips presented in a randomized order for twenty-two participants: (1) single application 5 s after wetting (also repeated using GreenGlo for comparison), (2) single application using two strips held together, 5 s after wetting, (3) two applications using a single LG strip 5 s after wetting, 1 minute apart, (4) the same as method 3, with a single fluorescein strip in between LG applications. White light imaging was performed immediately following application and after 30, 60, 90, and 300 s. Three masked practitioners independently evaluated the randomized staining images for spot count and staining intensity. <b>Results:</b> Physical study: Strip paper fibres demonstrated visible similarities, with no difference in saline absorption (<i>p</i> > 0.05). LG concentration increased as saline retention duration increased (F = 964.1, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and GreenGlo tips were significantly darker (F = 2775.2, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In vivo study: I-DEW application resulted in less conjunctival staining than GreenGlo (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Amongst I-DEW application techniques, staining levels were similar (<i>p</i> > 0.05); however, staining intensity was significantly higher following two applications of I-DEW, 1 min apart, compared to a single application (<i>p</i> = 0.042). Both spot count and staining intensity decreased with time (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions:</b> Two applications of I-DEW using a single strip, 1 min apart, after wetting with a single drop of saline provided maximal staining. There was also a significant difference in staining intensity observed between LG products.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11943145/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14062022","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Backgrounds/Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare differences in the physical characteristics of lissamine green (LG) strips and the outcomes of using different staining techniques. Methods: Two separate complementary investigations were conducted. Physical study: Differences between four LG strips were evaluated in terms of material, dye concentration, and dye absorption. In vivo study: Bulbar conjunctival staining was compared for four application methods of I-DEW LG strips presented in a randomized order for twenty-two participants: (1) single application 5 s after wetting (also repeated using GreenGlo for comparison), (2) single application using two strips held together, 5 s after wetting, (3) two applications using a single LG strip 5 s after wetting, 1 minute apart, (4) the same as method 3, with a single fluorescein strip in between LG applications. White light imaging was performed immediately following application and after 30, 60, 90, and 300 s. Three masked practitioners independently evaluated the randomized staining images for spot count and staining intensity. Results: Physical study: Strip paper fibres demonstrated visible similarities, with no difference in saline absorption (p > 0.05). LG concentration increased as saline retention duration increased (F = 964.1, p < 0.001), and GreenGlo tips were significantly darker (F = 2775.2, p < 0.001). In vivo study: I-DEW application resulted in less conjunctival staining than GreenGlo (p < 0.001). Amongst I-DEW application techniques, staining levels were similar (p > 0.05); however, staining intensity was significantly higher following two applications of I-DEW, 1 min apart, compared to a single application (p = 0.042). Both spot count and staining intensity decreased with time (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Two applications of I-DEW using a single strip, 1 min apart, after wetting with a single drop of saline provided maximal staining. There was also a significant difference in staining intensity observed between LG products.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信