Real-world performance of the inflammadry test in dry eye diagnosis: an analysis of 1,515 patients.

Germán Mejía-Salgado, William Rojas-Carabali, Carlos Cifuentes-González, Laura Zárate-Pinzón, Camilo Andrés Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Guillermo Marroquín-Gómez, Martha Lucía Moreno-Pardo, Juliana Tirado-Ángel, Alejandra de-la-Torre
{"title":"Real-world performance of the inflammadry test in dry eye diagnosis: an analysis of 1,515 patients.","authors":"Germán Mejía-Salgado, William Rojas-Carabali, Carlos Cifuentes-González, Laura Zárate-Pinzón, Camilo Andrés Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Guillermo Marroquín-Gómez, Martha Lucía Moreno-Pardo, Juliana Tirado-Ángel, Alejandra de-la-Torre","doi":"10.1007/s00417-025-06760-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the diagnostic performance of the InflammaDry test in diagnosing dry eye disease (DED) using different diagnostic criteria and across varying severities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12795,"journal":{"name":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-025-06760-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

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
5.40
自引率
7.40%
发文量
398
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Graefe''s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology is a distinguished international journal that presents original clinical reports and clini-cally relevant experimental studies. Founded in 1854 by Albrecht von Graefe to serve as a source of useful clinical information and a stimulus for discussion, the journal has published articles by leading ophthalmologists and vision research scientists for more than a century. With peer review by an international Editorial Board and prompt English-language publication, Graefe''s Archive provides rapid dissemination of clinical and clinically related experimental information.
期刊最新文献
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on glaucoma surgery in German hospitals. Real-world performance of the inflammadry test in dry eye diagnosis: an analysis of 1,515 patients. Analysis of prognostic factors in acute retinal necrosis using ultrawide-field fundus imaging. Prediction of short-term anatomic prognosis for central serous chorioretinopathy using a generative adversarial network. Longitudinal changes in ocular biometry and their effect on intraocular lens power calculation accuracy in cataract patients.
×
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