IOVS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2005;46:1911-1914.)
© 2005 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.04-1294

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nichols, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Nichols, K. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nichols, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Nichols, K. K.

Self-Reported Dry Eye Disease across Refractive Modalities

Jason J. Nichols, Corrie Ziegler, G. Lynn Mitchell, and Kelly K. Nichols

From The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

PURPOSE. To compare self-reported dry eye disease across contact lens wearers, spectacles wearers, and clinical emmetropes (i.e., those not requiring refractive correction).

METHODS. The survey included two symptom questions (dryness and light sensitivity) that inquired about frequency and intensity at three times of day (morning, afternoon, and evening) and a self-perception question (i.e., Do you think you have dry eyes?). Dryness and light sensitivity scales were then calculated, summed, and scored, providing a dry eye classification. Logistic regression (binary and multinomial) and analysis of covariance were used to examine the relation between mode of refractive correction and dry eye status, frequency of symptoms, and diurnal change in symptom intensity.

RESULTS. Overall, 893 surveys were completed, and the age-adjusted frequency of dry eye in the sample was 28.7%, with 3.5% of the sample reporting severe symptoms (at least grade 4 of a possible 5 for both symptoms). Contact lens wearers were most likely to report dry eye disease (52.3%), followed by spectacle wearers (23.9%) and clinical emmetropes (7.1%). Adjustment for age and gender showed that contact lens (adjusted odds ratio = 12.37, 95% confidence interval = 7.55–20.26) and spectacle wearers (adjusted odds ratio = 2.06, 95% confidence interval = 1.12–3.80) were more likely than emmetropes to report dry eye problems. After adjustment for age and gender, contact lens wearers were shown to be more likely to experience frequent symptoms and an increase in symptoms throughout the day (F = 51.4, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS. The frequency of self-reported dry eye is high, especially in contact lens wearers.








HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology