Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 11

Randomized, masked, in vitro comparison of three commercially available tear film osmometers

Authors Rocha G, Gulliver E, Borovik A, Chan CC

Received 8 November 2016

Accepted for publication 10 January 2017

Published 27 January 2017 Volume 2017:11 Pages 243—248

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S127035

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Yang Liu

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser

Guillermo Rocha,1 Eric Gulliver,1 Armand Borovik,2 Clara C Chan2

1Department of Ophthalmology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 2Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the precision and accuracy of commercially available tear film osmometers.
Methods: Contrived tear solution target values representing the physiological range of tear osmolarity (normal eyes 297 mOsm/L, moderately dry eyes 342 mOsm/L, and severe dry eyes 383 mOsm/L) were constructed using a mix of mono- and divalent electrolytes, metabolites, serum albumin, and pH balanced to 7.4. Solution values were randomized and masked from the investigators during testing. Osmometers (Wescor 5520 Vapro Pressure Osmometer: device A, TearLab Osmolarity System: device B, and i-Med Pharma i-Pen: device C) were calibrated according to manufacturer instructions. Each level was tested 64× on each osmometer across two sites. Accuracy was reported as a correlation coefficient against expected linear dilutions, precision was calculated as percent coefficient of variation.
Results: Device A reported a correlation with known solutions of r2=0.98, with averages of 305.6±4.0, 352.2±5.5, and 389.8±4.0 mOsm/L, and coefficient of variations (CVs) of 1.3%, 1.6%, and 1.0%, respectively. Device B reported an r2=0.96, with averages of 300.6±3.7, 341.4±7.9, and 376.8±5.1 mOsm/L, and CVs of 1.2%, 2.3%, and 1.4%, respectively. Device C reported an r2=0.03, with averages of 336.4±21.5, 342.0±20.7, and 345.7±22.0 mOsm/L, and CVs of 6.4%, 6.1%, and 6.4%, respectively.
Conclusion: In this randomized, masked, in vitro study, device A and device B had significantly better accuracy and precision in measuring osmolarity of contrived tear solutions of known target values compared to device C. Device C showed insufficient performance to accurately and precisely delineate osmolarity levels in the physiological range. Furthermore, in vivo studies would be required to compare performance in human subjects.

Keywords: tear osmolarity, TearLab Osmometer, i-Pen Osmometer, electrical impedance, Wescor Osmometer, precision

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Other article by this author:

Randomized comparison of in vivo performance of two point-of-care tear film osmometers

Nolfi J, Caffery B

Clinical Ophthalmology 2017, 11:945-950

Published Date: 22 May 2017