ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Impact of Clinician Subjectivity on the Assessment of Dry Eye Disease Prevalence in a UK Public Health Care Patient Population.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Agreement Between Invasive and Non-invasive Assessments for Preoperative Dry Eye Disease Screening in Patients with Cataracts.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To understand the impact of subjectivity on diagnosis rates of dry eye disease (DED) in an unbiased population. Patients and Methods: A multicenter study enrolled 818 subjects with complete report forms (465 females, 67.1 ± 16.7 years, 353 males, 65.0 ± 15.9 years). Subjects were evaluated for staining, TBUT, tear osmolarity, meibomian gland disease, and OSDI. Results: Physicians diagnosed 48.7% of subjects as having DED, ranging from 42.9% to 62.3% between sites. Positivity rates for staining (≥ grade 1) ranged from 41.3% to 84.1% (mean = 0.8 ± 0.9 grade), TBUT (<10s) ranged from 39.1% to 61.6% (mean = 10.4 ± 6.6 seconds), osmolarity (>308 mOsm/L) ranged from 63.7% to 72.4% (mean = 319.7 ± 20.8), MGD grading ranged from 28.9% to 51.3% (mean = 0.5 ± 0.7), and symptoms measured by OSDI ranged from 57.6% to 71.0% (mean = 23.5 ± 20.5) between sites. Tear osmolarity was the most consistent between sites (max/min positivity = 114%), followed by OSDI (123%), TBUT (158%), MGD (178%), and staining (204%). DED markers were uncorrelated (average Conclusion: Subjective signs of DED varied considerably, whereas objective measurements of OSDI and osmolarity were the most consistent between sites. A large proportion of subjects exhibited high symptoms and hyperosmolarity but no other obvious signs of dry eye disease, most of whom were undiagnosed by clinical assessment without access to the osmolarity measurement.
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.