It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The agreement between fluorescein breakup time (FBUT) estimates and noninvasive breakup time (NIBUT) estimates automatically acquired using two videokeratoscopes was assessed. Small-cone (E300, Medmont) and large-bowl (K5M, OCULUS) Placido-ring–based videokeratoscopes were utilized for automated NIBUT estimation and fluorescein strip method was used for FBUT estimation. 33 subjects completed the study. Clear instructions were given regarding the blink before measurements. Bland–Altman analysis was used to test the agreement between tear film breakup time estimates and repeated measure analysis of variance was used to test the differences between measurement types. In comparison to FBUT, E300 NIBUT estimate was shorter (− 0.6 ± 2.6 s), whereas K5M NIBUT estimate was longer (3.3 ± 2.4 s). Limits of agreement for FBUT vs. E300 was 29.8 s, for FBUT vs. K5M 26.4 s, and 31.4 s for E300 vs. K5M. There were significant differences between tear film breakup times (F = 3.59, df = 2, P = 0.032). E300 and K5M NIBUT measurements have poor agreement with FBUT, even when blinking is precisely clarified. Agreement was better for shorted break up times than that for longer ones but in general NIBUT measurements are not interchangeable.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Department of Optics and Photonics, Faculty of Fundamental Problems of Technology, Wroclaw, Poland (GRID:grid.7005.2) (ISNI:0000 0000 9805 3178)
2 Complutense University of Madrid, Department of Optometry and Vision, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Madrid, Spain (GRID:grid.4795.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 7667)