A comparative study to assess the clinical use of Fluorescein Meniscus Time (FMT) with Tear Break up Time (TBUT) and Schirmer’s tests (ST) in the diagnosis of dry eyes

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Introduction The clinical diagnosis of dry-eye is confirmed by a suitable test of tear production and the technique commonly used today to diagnose dry eye is the Schirmer’s test (ST). Although the ST is easy to perform it gives variable results, poor reproducibility and low sensitivity for detecting dry eyes. Another test, the tear break up time (TBUT) is used to assess the stability of tears which if abnormal may also cause symptomatic dry-eye. We present the results of both these tests and a new test, which shows greater sensitivity than the ST in detecting aqueous tear deficiency. The fluorescein meniscus time (FMT) is a new test developed in conjunction with one of the authors (CL) and the Department of Ophthalmology at the University Hospital of Wales. The FMT is a measure of the rate at which a fluorescent tear meniscus is formed using 2% sodium fluorescein, a stopwatch and suitable illumination with a slit lamp. Method An open controlled study in 62 patients and 51 controls was conducted to compare the ability of ST, FMT and TBUT to detect dry-eye in a group of patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and symptomatic dry eyes for a minimum period of 6 months. A separate control group of 15 subjects was tested on three separate occasions to assess the reproducibility of the FMT test. Results All three tests showed a statistically significant difference between the patient and control populations; Mann–Whitney P < 0.001. There was a correlation between the right and left eye for all three tests in the control group (ST r2 = 0.77, FMT r2 = 0.98, TBUT r2 = 0.94). This correlation was markedly reduced for FMT and TBUT in the patient population and was in keeping with the symptoms reported as being worse on one side in a proportion of the patients (FMT r2 = 0.52, TBUT r2 = 0.54, ST r2 = 0.75). A correlation with age was also observed for all the three tests in the control group (ST r2 = 0.74, FMT r2= 0.92, TBUT r2 = 0.51), but not in the patient population (ST r2 = 0.06, FMT r2 = 0.18, TBUT r2 = 0.03). A significant correlation was observed between the ST and FMT in both the control (ST vs FMT r2 = 0.65) and patient population (ST vs FMT r2 = 0.44). There was no value greater than 200 seconds for FMT recorded in the control group. Using this value to define an abnormal FMT, 85% of the patients (72% of the eyes tested) had an abnormal result. This was in contrast to 35% of patients (26% of the eyes tested) with abnormal results detected by ST. Using ANOVA and Student’s paired t-test, there were no significant differences between the three sets of values recorded serially over 3 months to assess the reproducibility of the FMT. The average standard error of the mean was 2.72% and the average co-efficient of variation 4.07%. Conclusion Our study suggests that the FMT is a more sensitive test with good reproducibility compared to the Schirmer’s test. The FMT correlates with the ST and suggests that both tests measure aqueous tear deficiency. The FMT therefore is a better alternative to ST currently being used to test aqueous tear deficiency.

This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit: