ArticleHeliyon2023
International survey on dry eye diagnosis by experts.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement Between Tear Film Tests Performed by Novice Examiners.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- International Survey of Eye Care Practitioners on Dry Eye Disease: A Comparative Analysis of South Africa, the United Kingdom and Other Global Regions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Research progress in animal models of dry eye disease: Types, mechanisms, and application prospects.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- Patient-Reported Symptoms Versus Clinician-Measured Signs to Distinguish Sjogren's in Patients With Dry Eye.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate patterns and opinion from international experts with respect to dry eye disease (DED) diagnosis in clinical practice. Methods: An online survey was distributed to worldwide DED experts. The use of diagnosis tests was evaluated including: symptoms questionnaires, functional tests, tear stability, tear volume, tear composition, surface damage and inflammation, and eyelid assessment. After the subjective importance of symptoms, tear break up time (TBUT), non-invasive TBUT, Schirmer's test, tear meniscus height, tear osmolarity, tear metalloproteinase 9, blepharitis assessment and non-contact meibography was evaluated according to likert scale. Results: The survey was sent to 109 experts, and 77 completed the questionnaire (rate of response = 70.6%). Most of the participants were from North America (27%) and Europe (40%). A majority of respondents (73%) diagnose DED using clinical signs and symptoms, but not fulfilling a specific criteria. Seventy-six participants (98.7%) use symptoms questionnaires. All participants evaluate damage to ocular surface, and fluorescein staining is the most frequent method used (92%). Also, all the respondents perform meibomian gland and blepharitis assessment. On the other hand, only 69.8% evaluate tear composition, being osmolarity the most common test used (66.2%). Regarding to the importance of tests, TBUT (p = 0.002) and Schirmer's (p = 0.021) were found to be more important to experts from Europe than North America. No differences were found in any other test (p > 0.05). Conclusions: This survey offers updated and day-to-day diagnostic clinical practice by DED worldwide experts. The results highlight the importance of symptoms and clinical signs, but not necessarily following a strict criteria.
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.