Jump to:

Peer-reviewed articles


Wong,S., Srinivasan,S., Murphy,P. J., Jones,L. Comparison of meibomian gland dropout using two infrared imaging devices Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2019;42(3):311-317 [ Show Abstract ]

Purpose: To measure the degree of meibomian gland (MG) dropout in the lower eyelid determined by analysis of images obtained from the LipiView II (LVII) and the Keratograph 5M (K5M).

Methods: The inferior eyelid of each participant was imaged in a random order using both devices. All images were subjectively assessed by a single-masked investigator to determine the extent of MG loss using the Arita 4-point meiboscore grading scale. The images were also semi-objectively analyzed with ImageJ to calculate the percentage of MG dropout, by tracing around the non-glandular area and the total exposed area of the lower lid.

Results: Twenty participants (mean age 37 years, range 23–60, 60% female) completed the study. A significant difference in meiboscore (mean ± SD) was obtained between the LVII and the K5M (1.43 ± 0.78 vs. 1.90 ± 0.81, Z = 3.25, p = 0.001). The meiboscore 95% limit of agreement (LOA) ranged from −1.88 to +0.93. A significant difference was found with mean ImageJ percentage dropout between the LVII and the K5M (31.5% vs 43.4%, t = −4.8, p = 0.00003). The percentage dropout 95% LOA ranged from −42.79% to +19.06%.

Conclusions: LVII images had significantly lower meiboscores and less percentage MG dropout. Varying amounts of dropout were observed between the devices due the amount of eyelid that was typically everted and because of differences in image quality. These results indicate that these devices should not be used interchangeably to evaluate MG dropout.


Wong,S., Murphy,P.J., Jones,L. Tear evaporation rates: What does the literature tell us? Contact Lens and Anterior Eye 2018;41(3):297-306 [ Show Abstract ]

Purpose: A previous literature review reported tear evaporation rates (TERs) from studies conducted on rabbits and humans between 1941 and 2003. Closer examination of the presented data revealed inaccuracies in the reporting of some values. This paper presents updated tables of TERs using values from the original papers cited in the review, in addition to incorporating new studies published between 2003 and 2016. Methods: A copy of each paper cited in the literature review was obtained and checked against the evaporation rate reported in the review. If the expected value could not be found in the cited paper, other papers by the same author were consulted to see if the value had been reported elsewhere. A PubMed and Scopus database search was conducted to find papers published on tear evaporimetry since 2003. Results: Two new tables of TERs were created, based on the values reported by the original author. To aid in interpretation, the majority of results are expressed in units of x 10−7 g/cm2/sec. Where it was not possible to convert these values, some values are expressed as x 10−7 g/sec, x 10−7 g/sec/eye or W/min. Conclusions: Two new tables of TERs have been compiled to provide an accurate representation of the values reported in the original papers. These tables can be used as a point of reference for other researchers to compare their results.

Scientific Presentations


Wong S, Bhamra T, Jones L, Tighe B. Subjective assessment of contact lens handling: what can we learn from the past? BCLA Conference, Manchester, UK, 2019 [ Show Abstract ]

Purpose: This study examines correlations between clinician-assessed subjective ease of handling of soft contact lenses, and laboratory-assessed physicochemical characteristics. High CL dropout rates caused by handling problems and difficulties in objectively measuring handling performance underline the clinical importance of such studies. The first stage involved assessment of conventional hydrogel lenses widely available in the 1980s, some currently available and some not. This is a platform for assessment of SiHy lenses in which effects of inherently lower coefficients of friction need to be assessed in parallel.

Methods: The prospective, single-masked study involved participants (no previous long-term CL wear history) each asked to rate the ease of handling of 23 different types of soft CLs on a 10-point continuous scale. Primary physicochemical data (e.g. EWC, lens thickness and mass, tensile modulus) were collected and additionally transposed into derived quantities (e.g. stiffness factor, plasticising factor).

Results: The data for the conventional hydrogels revealed:
• The early conventional hydrogels Hydrocurve II and SofLens 38 had lowest mean ± SD handling scores of 6.08 ± 1.56 and 6.08 ± 1.98, respectively.
• Excelens had the highest mean handling score of 8.67 ± 1.78.
• No significant correlation was found between handling and the equilibrium water content (Spearman’s r = -0.34, p = 0.11) or centre thickness (Spearman’s r = 0.33, p = 0.13)
• Handling of hydrogel CLs was strongly correlated with the stated modulus (Spearman’s r = 0.70, p = 0.02), the equilibrium water content (Spearman’s r = 0.64, p = 0.04) and centre thickness (Spearman’s r = 0.76, p = 0.01).

Conclusions: The poster will discuss detailed lens data including graphical presentation of “derived” factors combining thickness and modulus together
with the observations that SiHy CLs had higher mean handling scores than hydrogel CLs. All current CLs had mean handling scores of > 6.0.


Wong S, Lum E, Planaguma Cornella A, Murphy P, Jones L. Surface temperature change in soft contact lenses: an in vitro study Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017;E-Abstract 3097

Wong S, Srinivasan S, Jones L. Comparison of meibomian gland dropout using two infrared imaging devices Optom Vis Sci 2017;94: E-Abstract 174064

Professional Publications


Wong S. A review of contact angle techniques ContactLensUpdate.com 2017