Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
Real-world performance of the inflammadry test in dry eye diagnosis: an analysis of 1,515 patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mejía-Salgado Germán, Rojas-Carabali William, Cifuentes-González Carlos, Zárate-Pinzón Laura, Rodríguez-Rodríguez Camilo Andrés, Marroquín-Gómez Guillermo, Moreno-Pardo Martha Lucía, Tirado-Ángel Juliana, de-la-Torre Alejandra
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of the InflammaDry test in diagnosing dry eye disease (DED) using different diagnostic criteria and across varying severities.
METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 1,515 patients. Subjects were categorized into three groups: Group (1) DED based on Dry Eye Workshop-II (DEWS-II): Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) ≥ 13 and at least one abnormal clinical sign (non-invasive tear break-up time [NIBUT] < 10 s, osmolarity > 308 mOsm/L, or corneal/conjunctival staining). Group (2) DED based on criteria used in prior clinical trials: OSDI > 13, Schirmer < 10 mm in 5 min, NIBUT < 10 s, and keratoconjunctival staining. Group (3) Healthy controls: OSDI ≤ 7, NIBUT ≥ 10 s, Schirmer ≥ 10 mm, and no keratoconjunctival staining. DED severity was classified using the ODISSEY European Consensus Group's definitions into severe and non-severe. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated for both criteria.
RESULTS: 1,363 patients were included in Group 1, 401 in Group 2, and 152 in Group 3. Sensitivity was 81.30% in the population diagnosed using previous clinical trial criteria but decreased to 69.99% when applying the DEWS-II criteria. Specificity was 38.16% in both groups, with 409/467 false negatives respectively.
CONCLUSION: InflammaDry shows good sensitivity in detecting DED in highly symptomatic cases with multiple clinical signs, but its performance decreases when broader criteria like DEWS-II are used. While valuable for detecting inflammation, routine use for DED diagnosis may lead to false negatives, especially in milder cases.
METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 1,515 patients. Subjects were categorized into three groups: Group (1) DED based on Dry Eye Workshop-II (DEWS-II): Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) ≥ 13 and at least one abnormal clinical sign (non-invasive tear break-up time [NIBUT] < 10 s, osmolarity > 308 mOsm/L, or corneal/conjunctival staining). Group (2) DED based on criteria used in prior clinical trials: OSDI > 13, Schirmer < 10 mm in 5 min, NIBUT < 10 s, and keratoconjunctival staining. Group (3) Healthy controls: OSDI ≤ 7, NIBUT ≥ 10 s, Schirmer ≥ 10 mm, and no keratoconjunctival staining. DED severity was classified using the ODISSEY European Consensus Group's definitions into severe and non-severe. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated for both criteria.
RESULTS: 1,363 patients were included in Group 1, 401 in Group 2, and 152 in Group 3. Sensitivity was 81.30% in the population diagnosed using previous clinical trial criteria but decreased to 69.99% when applying the DEWS-II criteria. Specificity was 38.16% in both groups, with 409/467 false negatives respectively.
CONCLUSION: InflammaDry shows good sensitivity in detecting DED in highly symptomatic cases with multiple clinical signs, but its performance decreases when broader criteria like DEWS-II are used. While valuable for detecting inflammation, routine use for DED diagnosis may lead to false negatives, especially in milder cases.