Premium
A novel strip meniscometry method for measuring aqueous tear volume in dogs: Clinical correlations with the Schirmer tear and phenol red thread tests
Author(s) -
Miyasaka Keiichi,
Kazama Yoshiyuki,
Iwashita Hiroko,
Wakaiki Shinsuke,
Saito Akihiko
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
veterinary ophthalmology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.594
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1463-5224
pISSN - 1463-5216
DOI - 10.1111/vop.12664
Subject(s) - receiver operating characteristic , medicine , ophthalmology , subclinical infection , cutoff , population , gold standard (test) , phenol red , nuclear medicine , pathology , chemistry , physics , environmental health , quantum mechanics , chromatography
Objectives The strip meniscometry test (SMT) is a novel method for quantitative measurement of tear volume with only five seconds. We aimed to evaluate clinical correlations of SMT with the gold standard Schirmer tear test (STT) and phenol red thread test (PRT) in dogs, including normal and tear‐deficient eyes. Animals studied Left eyes from 621 outpatient dogs with and without ocular disorders were evaluated. Procedures Each subject underwent SMT, PRT, and STT without topical anesthesia in the described order with five‐minute intervals. The total population was divided into four groups by classifying tear deficiency severity based on STT results: “severe” (0‐5 mm/min), “moderate” (6‐10 mm/min), “subclinical” (11‐14 mm/min), and “normal” (15 or more mm/min). Results The strongest correlation coefficient was found between SMT‐STT (0.676), followed by PRT‐STT (0.637) and SMT‐PRT (0.600) pairs. Mean(SD) scores of SMT, PRT, and STT in total population were 9.47 (4.08) mm/5 s, 33.30 (8.52) mm/15 s, and 16.47 (7.01) mm/min. Significant differences were found among STT‐classified groups, both using SMT and PRT results. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves revealed that SMT better agreed with STT than PRT; agreement increased with increasing STT severity. A cutoff for SMT was identified at 10 mm/5 s to discriminate normal eyes from tear‐deficient eyes, yielding high sensitivities and acceptable specificities. Conclusions SMT could be superior to PRT for discriminating tear‐deficient eyes. The high sensitivity of SMT could be useful as an initial diagnostic tool to rule out normal eyes with the short testing time.