Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.57(10) > 1010415

TOOLS
Kim, Ji, Lee, Seo, Kim, and Kim: Efficacy of Strip Meniscometry for Dry Eye Syndrome Diagnosis
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2016;57(10):1521-1526.

Published online: 25 September 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2016.57.10.1521

Efficacy of Strip Meniscometry for Dry Eye Syndrome Diagnosis

Moon Kyoung Kim, MD1, Yong Woo Ji, MD1, 2, Hyung Keun Lee, MD, PhD1, 2, Kyoung Yul Seo, MD, PhD1, Eung Kweon Kim, MD, PhD1, 2, Tae-im Kim, MD, PhD1, 2

1The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

2Corneal Dystrophy Research Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Tae-im Kim, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Severance Hospital, #50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea Tel: 82-2-2228-3570, Fax: 82-2-312-0541 E-mail: taeimkim@gmail.com

Received 7 July 2016       Accepted 20 September 2020

Copyright © 2016 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of strip meniscometry test for dye eye syndrome (DES) by measuring the correlation between strip meniscometry and conventional test measurements.

Methods

All subjects were examined using the Schirmer test, tear breakup time (TBUT) and strip meniscometry using SMTube (Echo Electricity Co., Ltd., Fukushima, Japan). Tear meniscus height (TMH), tear meniscus depth (TMD) and tear meniscus area (TMA) were measured using Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. The DES group (n = 46 eyes) was compared with the normal group (n = 30 eyes) and correlation was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient.

Results

Strip meniscometry measurement was significantly correlated with Schirmer score (r = 0.6080, p < 0.01), TBUT (r = 0.5980, p < 0.01), TMH (r = 0.6210, p < 0.01), TMD (r = 0.6080, p < 0.01) and TMA (r = 0.6370, p < 0.01). Strip meniscometry was significantly lower in the DES group (4.58 ± 1.94 mm) than the normal group (7.07 ± 2.61 mm, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Strip meniscometry was significantly correlated with other conventional test measurements for dry eye syndrome. Strip meniscometry is less time consuming and a less invasive method than the Schirmer test. Strip meniscometry could be an efficient tool to evaluate patients with dry eye syndrome in a clinical setting.

Keywords: Dry eye syndrome, Schirmer test, Strip meniscometry

References

1. The definition and classification of dry eye disease: report of the Definition and Classification Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007; 5:75–92.
2. Kim WJ, Kim HS, Kim MS. Current trends in the recognition and treatment of dry eye: a survey of ophthalmologists. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:1614–22.
crossref
3. Nichols KK, Nichols JJ, Zadnik K. Frequency of dry eye abdominal test procedures used in various modes of ophthalmic practice. Cornea. 2000; 19:477–82.
4. Nichols KK, Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL. The lack of association abdominal signs and symptoms in patients with dry eye disease. Cornea. 2004; 23:762–70.
5. Nichols KK, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. The repeatability of clinical measurements of dry eye. Cornea. 2004; 23:272–85.
crossref
6. Lamberts DW, Foster CS, Perry HD. Schirmer test after topical anesthesia and the tear meniscus height in normal eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979; 97:1082–5.
crossref
7. Holly FJ. Physical chemistry of the normal and disordered tear film. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1985; 104(Pt 4):374–80.
8. Ibrahim OM, Dogru M, Takano Y, et al. Application of visante abdominalal coherence tomography tear meniscus height measurement in the diagnosis of dry eye disease. Ophthalmology. 2010; 117:1923–9.
9. Dogru M, Ishida K, Matsumoto Y, et al. Strip meniscometry: a new and simple method of tear meniscus evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47:1895–901.
crossref
10. Methodologies to diagnose and monitor dry eye disease: report of the Diagnostic Methodology Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007; 5:108–52.
11. Sahai A, Malik P. Dry eye: prevalence and attributable risk factors in a hospital-based population. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2005; 53:87–91.
crossref
12. Calonge M, Diebold Y, Sáez V, et al. Impression cytology of the abdominal surface: a review. Exp Eye Res. 2004; 78:457–72.
13. Pinschmidt NW. Evaluation of the Schirmer tear test. South Med J. 1970; 63:1256.
crossref
14. Feldman F, Wood MM. Evaluation of the Schirmer tear test. Can J Ophthalmol. 1979; 14:257–9.
15. Wright JC, Meger GE. A review of the Schirmer test for tear production. Arch Ophthalmol. 1962; 67:564–5.
crossref
16. Pflugfelder SC, Tseng SC, Sanabria O, et al. Evaluation of subjective assessments and objective diagnostic tests for diagnosing tear-film disorders known to cause ocular irritation. Cornea. 1998; 17:38–56.
crossref
17. Kojima T, Ishida R, Dogru M, et al. A new noninvasive tear stabdominal analysis system for the assessment of dry eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:1369–74.
18. Ibrahim OM, Dogru M, Ward SK, et al. The efficacy, sensitivity, and specificity of strip meniscometry in conjunction with tear abdominal tests in the assessment of tear meniscus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52:2194–8.

Figure 1.
Optical coherence tomography image of the lower tear meniscus showing the tear meniscus height, depth and area. Measurements of tear meniscus height (TMH), tear meniscus depth (TMD), tear meniscus area (TMA) were performed using RTVue software.
jkos-57-1521f1.tif
Figure 2.
The image of Strip meniscometry tube® (SMTube; Echo Electricity Co., Ltd., Fukushima, Japan). The strip ni-trocellulose membranes have a pore size of 8 μ m. Natural blue dye 1 is printed at the tip of the strip. A millimeter and a numeric scale of up to 35 mm is printed on the both sides.
jkos-57-1521f2.tif
Table 1.
Test measurements for dry eye diagnosis
Parameter Mean (n = 76 eyes)
Schirmer test (mm) 21.46 ± 10.84 (4.0 to 35.0)
Tear breakup time (sec) 8.08 ± 3.72 (2.0 to 17.0)
Strip meniscometry (mm) 5.56 ± 2.53 (2.0 to 13.0)
TMH (μ m) 258.8 ± 103.4 (95.0 to 580.0)
TMD (μ m) 196.4 ± 73.03 (60.0 to 424.0)
TMA (mm2) 0.0353 ± 0.0272 (0.006 to 0.137)

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated. TMH = tear meniscus height; TMD = tear meniscus depth; TMA = tear meniscus area.

Table 2.
Comparison of Group A and Group B
Parameter Group A*(n = 46 eyes) Group B†(n = 30 eyes)
Schirmer test (mm) 17.37 ± 10.44 27.73 ± 8.19
Strip meniscometry (mm) 4.58 ± 1.94 7.07 ± 2.61
TBUT (sec) 5.59 ± 2.17 11.90 ± 1.86
Tear meniscus height (μ m) 230.0 ± 98.54 302.9 ± 96.30
Tear meniscus depth (μ m) 177.2 ± 66.32 225.8 ± 74.06
Tear meniscus area (mm2) 0.029 ± 0.025 0.050 ± 0.029

Values are presented as mean ± SD. All differences are p < 0.05 by student t-test.

TBUT = tear breakup time.

* Group A (Dry eye group): TBUT < 10 sec or Shirmer test < 10 mm

† Group B (Normal group): TBUT ≥ 10 sec and Shirmer test ≥ 10 mm.

Table 3.
Correlation of strip meniscometry test with tear function parameters
Parameter Correlation coefficient (r) p-value*
Schirmer test 0.6080 p < 0.01
Tear breakup time 0.5980 p < 0.01
Tear meniscus height 0.6210 p < 0.01
Tear meniscus depth 0.6080 p < 0.01
Tear meniscus area 0.6370 p < 0.01

* Spearman's correlation coefficient.

Table 4.
Comparison of correlation with tear meniscus measurements between Schirmer test and strip meniscometry
Parameter S Correlation coefficient (r)*
Strip meniscometry† Schirmer test†
Tear meniscus height 0.6210 0.405
Tear meniscus depth 0.6080 0.404
Tear meniscus area 0.6370 0.417

* Spearman's correlation coefficient

† All correlation coefficients are p < 0.01.

TOOLS
Similar articles