眼表参数的重复性和一致性 - Keratograph 5M 和 IDRA 的比较。

IF 4.1 3区医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Contact Lens & Anterior Eye Pub Date : 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1016/j.clae.2024.102281

Ka Yin Chan , Xulin Liao , Biyue Guo , Jimmy S.H. Tse , Peter H. Li , Allen M.Y. Cheong , William Ngo , Thomas C. Lam

{"title":"眼表参数的重复性和一致性 - Keratograph 5M 和 IDRA 的比较。","authors":"Ka Yin Chan , Xulin Liao , Biyue Guo , Jimmy S.H. Tse , Peter H. Li , Allen M.Y. Cheong , William Ngo , Thomas C. Lam","doi":"10.1016/j.clae.2024.102281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To evaluate the repeatability and agreement in dry eye measurements using Oculus Keratograph 5M (K5M) and SBM Sistemi IDRA (IDRA).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 108 participants were enrolled and 108 eyes were evaluated. Tear meniscus height (TMH) and first and average non-invasive break-up time (NIBUT) were measured using the K5M and IDRA (order randomly assigned). TMH was measured using the built-in caliper tool while NIBUT was computed by the automatic algorithm of the instruments.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The Bland Altman plots analysis showed a good agreement between the two instruments for TMH (95 % Limits of Agreement (LoA), −0.17 to 0.16), but not the first NIBUT (95 % LoA, −8.13 to 14.79) and average NIBUT (95 % LoA, −7.89 to 10.32). The values of the first and average NIBUT measured using IDRA were significantly shorter than in K5M (difference = median (IQR) −2.75 (−6.48- −0.28)s, <em>p</em> < 0.001 and difference = median (IQR) −1.65 (−3.97–1.89)s, <em>p</em> = 0.008 respectively). The TMH (<em>p</em> = 0.037) and NIBUT average (<em>p</em> = 0.033) measured by K5M, as well as the TMH (<em>p</em> = 0.040) measured by IDRA, exhibited unstable measurements across the three measurement times. The remaining parameters exhibited stability with three repeated measurements.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The NIBUT measurements are not interchangeable between IDRA and K5M, while the TMH was little difference between the two instruments. It is important to exercise caution when using different ocular surface analyzers to minimize errors in comparing multiple measurements.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49087,"journal":{"name":"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye","volume":"47 6","pages":"Article 102281"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ocular surface parameters repeatability and agreement —A comparison between Keratograph 5M and IDRA\",\"authors\":\"Ka Yin Chan , Xulin Liao , Biyue Guo , Jimmy S.H. Tse , Peter H. Li , Allen M.Y. Cheong , William Ngo , Thomas C. Lam\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clae.2024.102281\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To evaluate the repeatability and agreement in dry eye measurements using Oculus Keratograph 5M (K5M) and SBM Sistemi IDRA (IDRA).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 108 participants were enrolled and 108 eyes were evaluated. Tear meniscus height (TMH) and first and average non-invasive break-up time (NIBUT) were measured using the K5M and IDRA (order randomly assigned). TMH was measured using the built-in caliper tool while NIBUT was computed by the automatic algorithm of the instruments.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The Bland Altman plots analysis showed a good agreement between the two instruments for TMH (95 % Limits of Agreement (LoA), −0.17 to 0.16), but not the first NIBUT (95 % LoA, −8.13 to 14.79) and average NIBUT (95 % LoA, −7.89 to 10.32). The values of the first and average NIBUT measured using IDRA were significantly shorter than in K5M (difference = median (IQR) −2.75 (−6.48- −0.28)s, <em>p</em> < 0.001 and difference = median (IQR) −1.65 (−3.97–1.89)s, <em>p</em> = 0.008 respectively). The TMH (<em>p</em> = 0.037) and NIBUT average (<em>p</em> = 0.033) measured by K5M, as well as the TMH (<em>p</em> = 0.040) measured by IDRA, exhibited unstable measurements across the three measurement times. The remaining parameters exhibited stability with three repeated measurements.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The NIBUT measurements are not interchangeable between IDRA and K5M, while the TMH was little difference between the two instruments. It is important to exercise caution when using different ocular surface analyzers to minimize errors in comparing multiple measurements.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49087,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye\",\"volume\":\"47 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 102281\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367048424001735\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367048424001735","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的：评估使用 Oculus Keratograph 5M (K5M) 和 SBM Sistemi IDRA (IDRA) 进行干眼测量的重复性和一致性：方法：共招募了 108 名参与者，对 108 只眼睛进行了评估。使用 K5M 和 IDRA（顺序随机分配）测量了泪液半月板高度（TMH）、第一次和平均无创破裂时间（NIBUT）。TMH使用内置的卡尺工具测量，而NIBUT则由仪器的自动算法计算：布兰德-阿尔特曼图分析表明，两种仪器在 TMH 方面的一致性很好（95 % 一致性界限（LoA），-0.17 至 0.16），但在第一 NIBUT（95 % 一致性界限（LoA），-8.13 至 14.79）和平均 NIBUT（95 % 一致性界限（LoA），-7.89 至 10.32）方面的一致性较差。使用 IDRA 测量的第一个 NIBUT 值和平均 NIBUT 值明显短于 K5M（差值 = 中位数（IQR）-2.75 (-6.48- -0.28)s，p 结论）：IDRA 和 K5M 不能互换 NIBUT 测量值，而两种仪器的 TMH 差异不大。在使用不同的眼表分析仪时一定要谨慎，以尽量减少比较多个测量值时的误差。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Ocular surface parameters repeatability and agreement —A comparison between Keratograph 5M and IDRA

Purpose

To evaluate the repeatability and agreement in dry eye measurements using Oculus Keratograph 5M (K5M) and SBM Sistemi IDRA (IDRA).

Methods

A total of 108 participants were enrolled and 108 eyes were evaluated. Tear meniscus height (TMH) and first and average non-invasive break-up time (NIBUT) were measured using the K5M and IDRA (order randomly assigned). TMH was measured using the built-in caliper tool while NIBUT was computed by the automatic algorithm of the instruments.

Results

The Bland Altman plots analysis showed a good agreement between the two instruments for TMH (95 % Limits of Agreement (LoA), −0.17 to 0.16), but not the first NIBUT (95 % LoA, −8.13 to 14.79) and average NIBUT (95 % LoA, −7.89 to 10.32). The values of the first and average NIBUT measured using IDRA were significantly shorter than in K5M (difference = median (IQR) −2.75 (−6.48- −0.28)s, p < 0.001 and difference = median (IQR) −1.65 (−3.97–1.89)s, p = 0.008 respectively). The TMH (p = 0.037) and NIBUT average (p = 0.033) measured by K5M, as well as the TMH (p = 0.040) measured by IDRA, exhibited unstable measurements across the three measurement times. The remaining parameters exhibited stability with three repeated measurements.

Conclusion

The NIBUT measurements are not interchangeable between IDRA and K5M, while the TMH was little difference between the two instruments. It is important to exercise caution when using different ocular surface analyzers to minimize errors in comparing multiple measurements.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Contact Lens & Anterior Eye OPHTHALMOLOGY-

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

18.80%

发文量

198

审稿时长

55 days

期刊介绍： Contact Lens & Anterior Eye is a research-based journal covering all aspects of contact lens theory and practice, including original articles on invention and innovations, as well as the regular features of: Case Reports; Literary Reviews; Editorials; Instrumentation and Techniques and Dates of Professional Meetings.