↓ Skip to main content

Basal Tear Osmolarity as a metric to estimate body hydration and dry eye severity

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Retinal & Eye Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Basal Tear Osmolarity as a metric to estimate body hydration and dry eye severity
Published in
Progress in Retinal & Eye Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.02.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Willshire, A.J. Bron, E.A. Gaffney, E. Ian Pearce

Abstract

The osmolarities of various bodily fluids, including tears, saliva and urine, have been used as indices of plasma osmolality, a measure of body hydration, while tear osmolarity is used routinely in dry eye diagnosis, the degree of tear hyperosmolarity providing an index of disease severity. Systemic dehydration, due to inadequate water intake or excessive water loss is common in the elderly population, has a high morbidity and may cause loss of life. Its diagnosis is often overlooked and there is a need to develop a simple, bedside test to detect dehydration in this population. We hypothesize that, in the absence of tear evaporation and with continued secretion, mixing and drainage of tears, tear osmolarity falls to a basal level that is closer to that of the plasma than that of a tear sample taken in open eye conditions. We term this value the Basal Tear Osmolarity (BTO) and propose that it may be measured in tear samples immediately after a period of evaporative suppression. This value will be particular to an individual and since plasma osmolarity is controlled within narrow limits, it is predicted that it will be stable and have a small variance. It is proposed that the BTO, measured immediately after a defined period of eye closure, can provide a new metric in the diagnosis of systemic dehydration and a yardstick against which to gauge the severity of dry eye disease.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Other 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Retinal & Eye Research
#665
of 702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,896
of 344,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Retinal & Eye Research
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.