A comprehensive scoping review of methodological approaches and clinical applications of tear fluid biomarkers.

IF 18.6 1区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Progress in Retinal and Eye Research Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2025.101338
Marlies Gijs, Nienke van de Sande, Clémence Bonnet, Jente Schmeetz, Rosa Fernandes, Sònia Travé-Huarte, Marcela Huertas-Bello, Jeremy Chung Bo Chiang, Nikolay Boychev, Shruti Sharma
{"title":"A comprehensive scoping review of methodological approaches and clinical applications of tear fluid biomarkers.","authors":"Marlies Gijs, Nienke van de Sande, Clémence Bonnet, Jente Schmeetz, Rosa Fernandes, Sònia Travé-Huarte, Marcela Huertas-Bello, Jeremy Chung Bo Chiang, Nikolay Boychev, Shruti Sharma","doi":"10.1016/j.preteyeres.2025.101338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Tear fluid is an emerging source of disease biomarkers, drawing attention due to its quick, inexpensive, and non-invasive collection. The advancements in detection techniques enable the measurement of ultra-low biomarker levels from small sample volumes typical of tear fluid. The lack of standardized protocols for collection, processing, and analysis of tear fluid remains a significant challenge. To address this, we convened the Tear Research Network Review Taskforce in 2022 to review protocols from the past three decades, providing a comprehensive overview of the methodologies used in tear fluid biomarker research. A total of 1,484 articles published from January 1974 to May 2024 from two electronic databases, Embase and Ovid MEDLINE, were reviewed. An exponential increase in the number of articles on tear fluid biomarkers was observed from 2015 onwards. The two most commonly reported collection methods were; glass capillaries (45.2%), and Schirmer's strips (25%), with glass capillary tube collection remaining the most frequent method until 2019, when Schirmer's strips became the leading method. Most articles analyzed tear fluid proteins (65%) and focused on a single analyte (32.3%). In recent years, an increase was observed in the type and number of examined analytes. The differences in the reported methodologies and protocols underscore the need for standardization and harmonization within the field of tear fluid biomarkers to minimize methodological differences and reduce variability in clinical outcomes. Consistent and detailed reporting is essential for improving the reproducibility and validity of tear fluid studies, in order to advance their potential clinical applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":21159,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Retinal and Eye Research","volume":" ","pages":"101338"},"PeriodicalIF":18.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Retinal and Eye Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2025.101338","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Tear fluid is an emerging source of disease biomarkers, drawing attention due to its quick, inexpensive, and non-invasive collection. The advancements in detection techniques enable the measurement of ultra-low biomarker levels from small sample volumes typical of tear fluid. The lack of standardized protocols for collection, processing, and analysis of tear fluid remains a significant challenge. To address this, we convened the Tear Research Network Review Taskforce in 2022 to review protocols from the past three decades, providing a comprehensive overview of the methodologies used in tear fluid biomarker research. A total of 1,484 articles published from January 1974 to May 2024 from two electronic databases, Embase and Ovid MEDLINE, were reviewed. An exponential increase in the number of articles on tear fluid biomarkers was observed from 2015 onwards. The two most commonly reported collection methods were; glass capillaries (45.2%), and Schirmer's strips (25%), with glass capillary tube collection remaining the most frequent method until 2019, when Schirmer's strips became the leading method. Most articles analyzed tear fluid proteins (65%) and focused on a single analyte (32.3%). In recent years, an increase was observed in the type and number of examined analytes. The differences in the reported methodologies and protocols underscore the need for standardization and harmonization within the field of tear fluid biomarkers to minimize methodological differences and reduce variability in clinical outcomes. Consistent and detailed reporting is essential for improving the reproducibility and validity of tear fluid studies, in order to advance their potential clinical applications.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
34.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research is a Reviews-only journal. By invitation, leading experts write on basic and clinical aspects of the eye in a style appealing to molecular biologists, neuroscientists and physiologists, as well as to vision researchers and ophthalmologists. The journal covers all aspects of eye research, including topics pertaining to the retina and pigment epithelial layer, cornea, tears, lacrimal glands, aqueous humour, iris, ciliary body, trabeculum, lens, vitreous humour and diseases such as dry-eye, inflammation, keratoconus, corneal dystrophy, glaucoma and cataract.
期刊最新文献
The Dark and Bright Sides Of Retinal G Protein-Coupled Receptor (RGR) in Vision and Disease. A comprehensive scoping review of methodological approaches and clinical applications of tear fluid biomarkers. Prosthetic eye care – The current state of the art Comparative insights into the role of sex hormones in glaucoma among women and men RNA methylation homeostasis in ocular diseases: All eyes on Me
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1