Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39588394›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Transcultural Validation of the Five-Item Dry Eye Questionnaire for Indonesian Populations.

Nina A Noor, Damara Andalia, Niluh A Sri Ramandari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Nina A NoorOphthalmology, JEC Eye Hospitals and Clinics, Jakarta, IDN.
Damara AndaliaOphthalmology, JEC Eye Hospitals and Clinics, Jakarta, IDN.
Niluh A Sri RamandariOphthalmology, JEC Eye Hospitals and Clinics, Jakarta, IDN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Indonesian dry eye (DE) disease (DED) prevalence data remain scarce, and Indonesian validations of the five-item Dry Eye Questionnaire (DEQ-5) are unavailable. We aimed to translate and validate an Indonesian language adaptation of the DEQ-5 (INDO-DEQ-5) for local populations. Methods Our observational study involved linguistic validation of the translation, reliability testing, dataset screening, and data collection through ophthalmic examinations and interviews. Outpatient adults with dry eye symptoms and formal DED diagnoses were included. Data were captured at patients' enrolment, at their self-administered INDO-DEQ-5, and at ophthalmic examinations. This data was statistically analyzed for agreement, test-retest reliability, and by a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for dry eye sensitivity and specificity. Results Tear breakup time (TBUT) was the most frequently used clinical diagnostic parameter, with 96.8% of DED patients having abnormal TBUT. We captured 87.23% of all true DE cases, while the ROC and area under the ROC curve analyses found similar sensitivity between the INDO-DEQ-5 and the composite clinical diagnosis of DE, and TBUT was equivalent to the INDO-DEQ-5 in clinical diagnoses. The level of reliability of the INDO-DEQ-5 was moderate, and subscales were moderate or substantial. Conclusion The prediction of DE with TBUT was similar to predictions using the composite definition of clinical DE diagnosis, while the INDO-DEQ-5 diagnostic accuracy was similar to that of TBUT or a composite clinical diagnosis. Thus, the INDO-DEQ-5 is a reliable tool for the clinical evaluation and diagnosis of DE in Indonesian populations and will enable clinicians to rapidly collect accurate data to improve therapeutic management.

Indexed as

deq-5dry eye diseaselanguage adaptationtear film ocular surface society dry eye workshopvalidation

Identifiers

PMID39588394
PMCPMC11586872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.