ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Are we treating the right dry eye? A comparative analysis of digital eye strain and traditional dry eye disease: a prospective comparative study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe study aimed to compare the clinical features, tear-film characteristics, blinking dynamics, and treatment outcomes of patients with Dry Eye Disease (DED) and Digital Eye Strain (DES), and identify predictors of poor response.
methodsThis prospective comparative study included 264 participants, with 132 patients in each group (DES and DED). Patients completed the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q). Objective assessments included tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer’s test, fluorescein staining, blink rate, and incomplete blink percentage. Treatment outcomes were evaluated after 4 to 6 weeks. Multivariable models were adjusted for age, sex, screen exposure, baseline OSDI, TBUT, MGD, and blink rate.
resultsMean age was similar in both groups (DES: 39.8 years; DED: 41.7 years; p = 0.222). Median OSDI and CVS-Q scores showed no significant differences. TBUT was longer in DES (6.3 s) vs. DED (5.1 s; p = 0.005), while fluorescein staining was higher in DED (p = 0.027). Schirmer’s test, blink rate, and incomplete blink percentages were comparable. Improvement was seen in 65.2% (DES) vs. 56.1% (DED) (p = 0.291). Predictors of poor treatment response included female sex (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.05–1.60; p = 0.016), greater daily screen exposure (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.02–1.35; p = 0.024), higher baseline OSDI (OR 1.020 per point; 95% CI 1.004–1.037; p = 0.013), and shorter TBUT (OR 0.846 per second; 95% CI 0.716–0.999; p = 0.048).
conclusionsDES and DED demonstrate overlapping but distinct clinical profiles. TBUT, screen time, age, and symptom severity significantly influence treatment outcomes. Tailored therapeutic approaches that address both tear-film instability and screen-related behaviours are essential for optimal management. Findings should be interpreted in light of differing symptom- versus sign-based group definitions. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.