Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33664064›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Patient-reported burden of dry eye disease in the UK: a cross-sectional web-based survey.

Parwez Hossain, Csaba Siffel, Corey Joseph, Juliette Meunier, Jessica T Markowitz, Reza Dana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Epidemiology of dry eye disease in Argentina.Discover public health · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Parwez HossainClinical Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK parwez@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3131-2395
Csaba SiffelGlobal Evidence and Outcomes, Takeda, Lexington, Massachusetts, USA.
Corey JosephGlobal Evidence and Outcomes, Takeda, Lexington, Massachusetts, USA.
Juliette MeunierPatient Centered Outcomes, Modus Outcomes, Lyon, France.
Jessica T MarkowitzPatient Centered Outcomes, Modus Outcomes, Lyon, France.
Reza DanaCornea and Refractive Surgery Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute · USAugusta University Health · USMassachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · USSouthampton General Hospital · GBTakeda (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare sociodemographics and vision-related quality of life (QoL) of individuals with or without dry eye disease (DED); and to explore the impact of DED symptom severity on visual function, activity limitations and work productivity.

designCross-sectional web-based survey.

settingGeneral UK population.

participantsAdults ≥18 years with (N=1002) or without (N=1003) self-reported DED recruited through email and screened.

main outcome measuresAll participants completed the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), with six additional questions (items A3-A8), and the EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels. DED participants also completed Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life questionnaire, 5-item Dry Eye Questionnaire and the Standardised Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness questionnaire along with the Ocular Comfort Index, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment and the Eye Dryness Score (EDS), a Visual Analogue Scale.

resultsBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in participants with versus without DED (mean age, 55.2 vs 55.0 years; 61.8% vs 61.0% women, respectively) based on recruitment targets. Scores were derived from NEI VFQ-25 using the new 28-item revised VFQ (VFQ-28R) scoring. Mean (SD) VFQ-28R scores were lower in participants with versus without DED, indicating worse functioning (activity limitations, 73.3 (12.3) vs 84.4 (12.3); socioemotional functioning, 75.3 (21.5) vs 90.3 (16.2); total score, 71.6 (12.8) vs 83.6 (12.6)). Higher percentages of problems/inability to do activities were observed among those with versus without DED. The impact of DED on visual function was worse for participants with more severe DED symptoms, as assessed by EDS. In addition, a higher EDS was associated with worse symptoms on common DED scales and a worse impact on work productivity.

conclusionsDED symptoms were associated with negative effects on visual function, activities and work productivity, whereas worse DED symptoms had a greater impact on vision-related QoL and work productivity.

Indexed as

Dry Eye SyndromesQuality of LifeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomVisual AcuityYoung Adultcorneal and external diseasesepidemiologyophthalmologyprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID33664064
PMCPMC7934779
OpenAlexW3134543058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.