SynthesisBMJ open2016
Prevalence of dry eye disease in visual display terminal workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
106 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 212 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational exposure to video display terminals: a systematic review of ocular and visual health effects and associated risk factors.Journal of occupational health · 2026Pooled it
- TFOS lifestyle: Impact of societal challenges on the ocular surface.The ocular surface · 2023Pooled it
- Myopia and Near Work: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of treatments for neurotrophic keratopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of a Short Daytime Nap on the Cognitive Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Breastfeeding after Returning to Work: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of Home Exercise Training in Patients with Nonspecific Low-Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- DHEA as a Biomarker of Stress: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of exercise training on heart rate variability in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Prostate Cancer and Asbestos: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The Permanente journal · 2020Pooled it
- An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Trials On Topical Cyclosporin A For Dry-Eye Disease.Drug design, development and therapy · 2020Pooled it
- Suicide among physicians and health-care workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Heart rate variability in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Oxidative and Anti-Oxidative Stress Markers in Chronic Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Prevalence of computer vision syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of optometryPooled it
- Omega-3 fatty acids supplements for dry eye - Are they effective or ineffective?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Trial
- Comparison of the influence of light between circularly polarized and linearly polarized smartphones on dry eye symptoms and asthenopia.Clinical and translational science · 2022Trial
- A phase I study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of ocular GLH8NDE in healthy male adults.Clinical and translational science · 2022Trial
- Effect of warming eyelids on tear film stability and quality of life in visual display terminal users: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease (DED) in workers using visual display terminals (VDT).
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Science Direct databases for studies reporting DED prevalence in VDT workers.
results16 of the 9049 identified studies were included, with a total of 11,365 VDT workers. Despite a global DED prevalence of 49.5% (95% CI 47.5 to 50.6), ranging from 9.5% to 87.5%, important heterogeneity (I(2)=98.8%, p<0.0001) was observed. Variable diagnosis criteria used within studies were: questionnaires on symptoms, tear film anomalies and corneoconjunctival epithelial damage. Some studies combined criteria to define DED. Heterogeneous prevalence was associated with stratifications on symptoms (I(2)=98.7%, p<0.0001), tears (I(2)=98.5%, p<0.0001) and epithelial damage (I(2)=96.0%, p<0.0001). Stratification of studies with two criteria adjusted the prevalence to 54.0% (95% CI 52.1 to 55.9), whereas studies using three criteria resulted in a prevalence of 11.6% (95% CI 10.5 to 12.9). According to the literature, prevalence of DED was more frequent in females than in males and increased with age.
conclusionsOwing to the disparity of the diagnosis criteria studied to define DED, the global prevalence of 49.5% lacked reliability because of the important heterogeneity. We highlight the necessity of implementing common DED diagnostic criteria to allow a more reliable estimation in order to develop the appropriate preventive occupational actions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.