Abstract
PurposeTo evaluate the discriminative abilities and optimal cut-off values of qualitative meiboscale grading and percentage meibomian gland dropout measurements from each of two instruments (Keratograph and LipiView) in detecting dry eye disease, as defined by the TFOS DEWS II criteria. MethodsA total of 227 community residents (143 females, 84 males; mean ± SD age, 36 ± 15 years) were recruited in a prospective, investigator-masked, randomised, crossover study. Dry eye symptomology, tear film parameters, and ocular surface characteristics were evaluated in a single clinical session. Qualitative meiboscale grading and quantitative percentage gland dropout assessment using Image J software were evaluated by independent masked assessors, in a randomised order. ResultsOverall, 92 (41 %) participants fulfilled the TFOS DEWS II criteria for dry eye disease. The diagnostic performances for percentage meibomian gland dropout measurements (C-statistic range, 0.629 to 0.647) were significantly greater than qualitative meiboscale grading (C-statistic range, 0.547 to 0.560) for both instruments. The Youden-optimal diagnostic cut-off percentage gland dropout was > 20 % and optimal threshold meiboscale grade was > 1 for both superior and inferior eyelid measurements from the two instruments. Inter-instrument weighted Cohen’s kappa coefficients for meiboscale grading were 0.734 and 0.682, respectively, and Bland-Altman biases (95 % limits of agreement) for percentage gland dropout were −1.8 % (−28.1 % to 24.4 %) and −1.5 % (−29.3 % to 26.2 %), respectively. ConclusionsDespite exhibiting comparable discriminative abilities, meibography parameters obtained from the Keratograph and LipiView were not directly interchangeable. Overall, percentage gland dropout measurements demonstrated superior diagnostic performance, which would support their use in clinical trials and epidemiology studies, where practicable.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.