Next Article in Journal
Effectiveness of Early Direct Oral Anticoagulant Monotherapy within One Year of Coronary Stent Implantation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Population-Based Study
Next Article in Special Issue
A Comprehensive Study on Tear Meniscus Height Inter-Eye Differences in Aqueous Deficient Dry Eye Diagnosis
Previous Article in Journal
Recent Advances and Future Challenges in Pancreatic Cancer Care: Early Detection, Liquid Biopsies, Precision Medicine and Artificial Intelligence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 23
10.3390/jcm12237484
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Association of Dry Eye Disease with Functional Visual Acuity and Quality of Life

by
Lydia Hui-Peng Tan
1 and
Louis Tong
2,3,4,*
1
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 118417, Singapore
2
Corneal and External Diseases Department, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore 168751, Singapore
3
Ocular Surface Group, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore 169856, Singapore
4
Eye Academic Clinical Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore 169857, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(23), 7484; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12237484
Submission received: 13 October 2023 / Revised: 26 November 2023 / Accepted: 1 December 2023 / Published: 4 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dry Eye Disease: Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention Measures)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Dry eye disease (DED) is a common chronic condition with increasing prevalence. Standard discriminative visual acuity is not reflective of real-world visual function, as patients can achieve normal acuities by blinking. Methods: Participants recruited from a tertiary referral eye centre were divided into two groups—Severe DED (with significant, central staining) and Mild DED (absence of such staining). Functional Visual Acuity (FVA) in both groups was assessed using the DryeyeKT mobile application and Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire to assess quality of life (QOL). Results: Among the 78 participants (74.4% women), 30 (38.5%) had Severe DED and 48 (61.5%) Mild DED. In women, Severe DED produced a significantly worse FVA of 0.53 ± 0.20 vs. 0.73 ± 0.30 in the Mild DED group (p = 0.006). FVA decreased with increasing age, showing a significant inverse correlation (r = −0.55). A poorer FVA ≤ 0.6 was seen in older patients (68.2 years ± 7.68) vs. an FVA > 0.6 in younger patients (58.9 years ± 10.7), p < 0.001. When adjusting for age, FVA was still 0.107 lower in the Severe DED group, p = 0.003. There was significant difficulty in performing specific daily activities in the Severe DED group, after adjusting for age, gender and FVA. Conclusions: FVA is reduced in severe DED and older people. Severe DED significantly impacts certain aspects of QOL. However, no significant relationship was found between FVA and QOL. FVA is not the only reason for the compromise of health-related QOL in severe dry eye.

1. Introduction

Dry eye disease (DED) is a common chronic condition [1,2,3,4,5] that significantly affects quality of life (QOL) [6,7,8], often presenting with symptoms of grittiness, burning and foreign body sensation. It causes a great impairment of functional visual acuity [9], limiting vision-related activities in the day-to-day life of patients, such as reading and driving [10,11]. Epidemiological studies suggest a prevalence rate ranging from 5 to 50% in different populations, and being Asian is one of the risk factors for the development of DED [2]. More notably, there is an increasing prevalence of DED as society continues to age [12,13].
The multifactorial aetiology of DED can be simplified to two main mechanisms—decreased tear production and/or increased evaporative loss [14]. The tear film consists of three main layers—the inner mucin layer, middle aqueous layer and outer lipid layer—which provide a barrier to minimise tear evaporation from the ocular surface [15].
The diagnosis and severity of DED are often assessed through thorough history taking and symptom questionnaires in combination with clinical signs and ocular examinations [16,17]. However, there is currently no objective method that is routinely used to determine visual function in dry eye.
The reason for poor tear function in dry eye is that poor tear stability [18] induces an uneven tear film between blinks, inducing optical aberrations [19]. Tear dysfunction is also a major cause of superficial corneal epithelial disease [20]. In cases of dry eye with cornea epitheliopathy (shown by fluorescein staining), the ocular surface as an optical medium may also scatter light due to lack of homogeneity [20,21,22]. Conventional visual acuity screening is significantly limited in dry eye patients, as they can achieve near-normal acuity levels simply by increasing the frequency of blinking to compensate for an inadequate tear film during the examination [23]. Therefore, a more dynamic form of vision assessment that simulates real-world visual tasks is the preferred approach.
Over the years, various mobile applications have been developed as a self-screening tool for patients to estimate their probability of having DED [24,25]. The mobile application “You Can Know Whether You Have Dry Eye in a Minute” uses dynamic testing methods to test for functional visual acuity (FVA), coupled with validated DED symptom questionnaires, while allowing subjects to blink naturally during the measurement period. A study revealed that tear film breakup time (TBUT) was significantly shorter among subjects with DED identified by the application [25].
The objective of this study was firstly to determine if FVA (performed via the smartphone application) was reduced in severe dry eye and its correlation to QOL. Secondly, we aimed to evaluate the correlation between this FVA and other clinical parameters of DED.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

A prospective cross-sectional, comparative study was conducted involving 78 participants recruited from the Singapore National Eye Center. Thirty participants were recruited to the severe dry eye (Severe DED) group and 48 participants were recruited to the comparison mild dry eye (Mild DED) group. Diagnosis of dry eye was made by referring physicians prior to coming to our clinic. These patients all demonstrated the presence of dry eye symptoms, with either a TBUT < 5 or the presence of corneal staining.
Participants recruited to the Severe DED group had central corneal fluorescein staining in both eyes, while those recruited to the Mild DED group did not have central corneal fluorescein staining in any eye. Corneal fluorescein staining was performed using the Oculus Keratograph 5M [26] and scored in 5 corneal zones—superior, inferior, nasal, temporal and central. The inclusion criteria for the study participants comprised an age of 21 years or older during the time of study and a narrow range of Visual Acuity (VA) of between 6/6 and 6/9.5.
Participants meeting any of the following exclusion criteria were excluded from this study. These include participants who were unsuitable or unable to put their chin on the chin rest for the Oculus Keratograph 5M (Wetzlar, Germany) and slit lamp as well as participants who were pregnant, lactating or planning a pregnancy [27]. Pathological conditions in elderly eyes such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) [28] and macular oedema [29] also led to exclusion. Participants with highly asymmetrical cases between the two eyes were not recruited.
The study was conducted in accordance with the tenets in the Declaration of Helsinki that are consistent with the Good Clinical Practice and Human Biomedical Research Act, Singapore. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The protocol was approved by the Singhealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (CIRB).

2.2. Study Outcomes

Participants’ characteristics, such as age and gender, were collected. A medical history was obtained, and previous dry eye treatment (if any) was recorded. Risk factors and potential causes of DED were identified, including history of allergies [30], history of dry mouth, history of contact lens wear, history of systemic diseases including autoimmune disorders and thyroid diseases [16], and history of medications [31] used within 1 month. A history of any previous ocular surgery was also recorded [31].
The primary outcomes were FVA in the severe dry eye group compared to the comparison group and QOL. The secondary outcomes were the clinical parameters of DED, including standard patient evaluation of eye dryness (SPEED), non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT), meibomian gland signs and Schirmer I readings.

2.3. Study Procedures

2.3.1. FVA

Functional Visual Acuity refers to an individual’s performance in relation to daily activities involving visual tasks. This was evaluated using the DryeyeKT mobile application developed by Kazuo Tsubota [25]. Participants were required to hold the mobile device 60 cm away from them for the 30 s FVA testing on the application. A single landolt C was shown in the middle of the screen, and participants were required to tap on the arrow of the direction of the broken ring; the size of the landolt C was adjusted in depending on whether the participant gave the correct response. The direction of the landolt C was randomised to up, down, left or right while waiting for the participants’ response. The application generated a score ranging from 0 (absent) to 2 (perfect visual function).

2.3.2. QOL Questionnaire

The Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire© assessing the QOL was administered in the interviewer format. The questionnaire has been validated across various ocular conditions [32,33] and various populations [34,35,36,37]. The questionnaire includes 28 questions divided into 3 domains: (i) reading and accessing information (9 items), (ii) mobility and independence (11 items), and (iii) emotional well-being (8 items). Response options used the Likert scale.

2.3.3. Tear Break-Up Time

This was assessed using a Keratograph 5M [26] (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). Briefly, patients blink freely while fixing on a target ahead. Once ready, patients blink twice and then refrain from further blinking. The fully automated instrument captures any break or distortion in the image of the projected rings on the cornea, and the timings are automatically recorded. Higher readings indicate more tear stability.

2.3.4. Corneal Fluorescein Staining

Corneal fluorescein staining was also performed using the Keratograph 5M and scored in 5 corneal zones as in the Brien Holden Vision Institute (BHVI) system [38], with a greater score indicating a more intense or greater area of staining.

2.3.5. Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED)

The SPEED questionnaire© consists of 4 questions on the frequency and severity of dry eye graded on a scale of 0–3 on frequency, and grades 0–4 on severity. Scores from all sub-questions were added, and the greater the total score (0–28), the more frequent or severe the dry eye [39].

2.3.6. Schirmer’s I Test

Schirmer test [40] was done with the standard 5 mm wide test strips (Clement Clarke International Ltd., Harlow, Essex, UK). The strips were positioned over the inferior temporal half of the lower lid margin in both eyes, and participants were required to close their eyes. The extent of wetting of the strips was recorded after 5 min, and strips were stored at −80 °C.

2.3.7. Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD) Examination

The meibomian glands were assessed by gently squeezing the lower eyelids using a device that delivers standardised pressure to the eyelids (Meibomian gland expressor, TearScience, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Milpitas, CA, USA). Textures of the expressed secretion were graded as liquid or viscous [41].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Sample size calculation was based on the clinical outcome of the Uchino 2018 [25] study on mobile application. We assumed a mean FVA score of 0.76 ± 0.04 in Severe DED and a 10% decrease in FVA for Mild DED, as anything smaller was unlikely to be clinically significant even if it was statistically significant. Sample size was determined using calculator software https://clincalc.com/stats/samplesize.aspx (accessed on 14 November 2023).
We aimed to achieve a significance level (α) of 0.05, power of 80% and sampling ratio of 1. To account for participants lost to follow-up, we recruited more than the required number. The difference between the number of participants in both groups was due to the consecutive recruitment of participants in our clinic, where a smaller proportion of patients have Severe DED.
Statistical analysis was performed using StataCorp. 2013 (Stata Statistical Software: Release 13.1. College Station, TX, USA: StataCorp LP). Statistical significance was at a two-tailed p-value of 0.05. A two-tailed t test was used to assess the mean differences of continuous variables such as FVA, overall IVI, NIBUT, staining grade, SPEED score, Schirmer’s test score and number of liquid-expressing glands. Fisher’s exact test was used for ordinal and categorical variables. Some continuous variables were categorised into binary categories according to meaningful clinical thresholds, and their associations were re-evaluated using the Fisher’s test via a 2 × 2 table. FVA score was categorised into ≤0.6, signifying poorer vision, and >0.6, as the comparison group with better vision. An FVA of 0.6 was used as the threshold as it was between the means of both the severe DED and milder DED group.
Variables were explored by first plotting a histogram to analyse the distribution and identify any outliers. Each item of the IVI was analysed separately in addition to the total score. Multiple logistic regression models were performed, with each question of the IVI questionnaire as a dependent variable. Covariates of the models were added incrementally. The correlation between FVA and other clinical parameters in the assessment of dry eye, as well as IVI scores, was also analysed.

3. Results

3.1. Participants’ Characteristics

A total of 78 participants were analysed. Thirty (38.5%) participants were from the Severe DED group, while 48 (61.5%) participants were from the comparison group with Mild DED. (Table 1) There was similar gender distribution in both groups (p = 1.00), although a large preponderance were female (73.3% in the Severe DED group vs. 75% in the Mild DED group). The mean age of participants in the Severe DED group was 63.9 ± 11.2, while the mean age of participants in the Mild DED group was 62.7 ± 10.4, p = 0.63. No difference was observed between the ages of participants in both groups, with the majority being above 50 years (90% vs. 87.5%, p = 1.00). Table 2 details the Ophthalmic and medical conditions of participants in both groups.

3.2. Assessment of Dry Eye

As expected, corneal fluorescein staining grade was significantly elevated in the Severe DED group compared to the Mild DED group in all quadrants for both eyes (Table 3). The inferior zone of the cornea is most commonly affected by dry eye [42,43].
However, there was no significant difference between the NIBUT scores of the two groups. The mean NIBUT in the Severe DED group and the Mild DED group was 6.89 ± 5.46 s and 9.15 ± 6.73 s, respectively (p = 0.13).
SPEED questionnaire scores were slightly worse in the Severe DED group, but this was not statistically significant. Participants in the Severe DED group had a score of 8.17 ± 6.64 compared to 5.29 ± 5.92 in the Mild DED group (p = 0.050).
The Schirmer’s test score was significantly higher in the Mild DED group (8.49 ± 9.80) than in the Severe DED group (3.53 ± 5.54), p = 0.014, for the right eye, and trended towards a higher score for the left eye as well. (Table 4) This means that there was significantly more wetting of the Schirmer test strip and hence greater tear production in the Mild DED group.
The total number of meibomian glands expressed was similar in both the Mild DED group and Severe DED group, p = 0.69 in the right eye and p = 0.58 in the left eye. However, significantly more meibum expressed was liquid in character in the Mild DED group compared to that in the Severe DED group, p = 0.045 in the right eye and p = 0.012 in the left eye (Table 5). Normal liquid meibum is clear and easily expressed, while viscous meibum which is usually associated with meibomian gland disease, can be difficult to express [44].

3.3. Functional Visual Acuity (FVA)

For the FVA testing, two patients (in the Severe DED group) were excluded from the analysis because the FVA mobile application was not available at the time of assessment.
We observed that in women, Severe DED produced a significantly worse FVA of 0.52 ± 0.20 compared to 0.73 ± 0.30 in the Mild DED group, p = 0.006 (Figure 1). There were not enough men in the study to show this relationship (Figure 2) (Table 6).
In general, functional visual acuity was observed to decrease with increasing age (Figure 3), with the two factors sharing a negative correlation coefficient (r = −0.55). The same trend was observed when analysing the two groups of participants separately (Figure 4).
When adjusting for age, FVA was observed to be 0.107 lower in the Severe DED group compared to the Mild DED group, p = 0.003.
An FVA of 0.6 was used as the threshold, as it was between the means of both groups. A poorer FVA ≤ 0.6 was seen in older patients (68.2 years ± 7.68) compared to an FVA > 0.6 in younger patients (58.9 years ± 10.7), p < 0.001 (Table 7). The Schirmer test score was also significantly higher in the FVA > 0.6 group (8.78 ± 10.3 vs. 3.15 ± 3.69, p = 0.005). There were no significant associations found between FVA and staining grade, NIBUT, number of meibomian glands expressed or SPEED.
Severe DED did not significantly affect overall IVI (Table 8), with a score of 75.2 ± 11.1 in the Severe DED group compared to 76.3 ± 13.3 in the Mild DED group (p = 0.70).
Q26 and Q28 were further analysed given that the results were close to a significance of p = 0.05. When adjusting for age, gender and FVA, participants in the Severe DED group showed significantly more concerns or worries about coping with everyday life (Table 9) and interference with life in general (Table 10).
When using an FVA of 0.6 as a cut-off, participants in both the FVA ≤ 0.6 and FVA > 0.6 groups had similar IVI scores (73.8 ± 15.9 vs. 77.0 ± 9.43, p = 0.28) (Table 11).

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Significant Findings and Comparison with Literature

Our study found that severe dry eye with severe central corneal fluorescein staining significantly impairs the FVA in DED. Patients with Severe DED performed poorer in identifying the direction of landolt C presented on the application, requiring larger fonts for near vision, even when blinking naturally during the testing. Previous studies have shown that FVA in severe DED decreased significantly when subject eyes were kept open for 10–20 s [9]. When dry eye patients compensated by blinking twice as much [45], this improved tear distribution across the cornea, reduced tear film break-up [46,47], and decreased the exposed ocular surface for tear evaporation [15,48]. This allowed patients to attain a normal best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) score on conventional visual acuity testing [49]. However, recent studies support our findings that severe DED patients benefit from dynamic testing that substantiated their subjective visual complaints [50]. Moreover, tasks requiring long periods of focus and near work are associated with a further decrease in spontaneous blinking rates [51,52,53], further contributing to the decrease in FVA in patients with severe dry eye.
A reduction in FVA did not impair all types of visually dependent activities but nonetheless posed significant concerns and problems with coping with daily life. While activities such as driving were not included in our QOL questionnaire, previous studies have shown that DED interfered with driving [11] and posed safety concerns [54]. Work productivity was also found to be reduced, contributing to a high economic burden [55,56,57,58]. It is interesting to note that while there were no significant differences in difficulty performing the majority of the daily activities between the two groups, those with severe dry eye had significantly increased feelings of nuisance or burden and interference with life in general. This could be attributed to the varying severity of DED among the patients recruited and that most of them were still able to compensate well or had developed various coping mechanisms [52]. Nonetheless, the psychological burden [59] and mental stress [60] of coping with constant symptoms should not be negated [61].
Our findings also suggest that older age impairs FVA marginally but takes more than 10 additional years to show its effect. A poorer FVA ≤ 0.6 was seen in older patients of 68.2 years mean age compared to FVA > 0.6 in younger patients of 58.9 years mean age. Hence, the prevalence of DED is expected to increase owing to the rapidly ageing population. Various studies have shown that the symptoms and signs of dry eye are common in the older population [12,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. This observation can be explained by various physiological changes in the human body brought about by senescence, such as the decrease in the number of active meibomian glands [70], gland dropout [65,71] and plugging of meibomian orifices [65]. The meibomian gland, which is responsible for the production of the superficial oily layer of the precorneal tear film [72], undergoes acinar cell atrophy and hyperkeratinization of the ductal epithelium with age [73,74], subsequently resulting in decreased tear flow [75,76].
Lastly, we were unable to prove a correlation between FVA and NIBUT as measured by the Ocular K5M. FVA is statistically well known to have a negative correlation with DED [77], and a reduction in TBUT is often used in the diagnosis of DED and assessment of its severity [78] and was even used for recruitment of patients to the severe dry eye group [25] in earlier studies. Yet, there was no significant difference between the tear film break-up time in the two groups in our study, although we found that TBUT tended to be worse in the severe dry eye group (6.89 ± 5.46 s vs. 9.15 ± 6.73 s, p = 0.13). Anecdotally we noticed poorly reproducible NIBUT readings in the patients with significant corneal staining, which could influence the robustness of the findings in the severe DED group.
The results of this study may provide guidance on methods for physicians to assess visual acuity–related symptoms that patients report. The use of existing mobile phone applications such as the DryeyeKT application in clinical practice could be beneficial, or newer dynamic methods of testing can be developed.

4.2. Strengths and Weaknesses

The main strength of our study is that we are the first to report the correlation between FVA performed via the DryeyeKT application and commonly used clinical parameters in the assessment of dry eye.
However, the study was limited by a small database with less than 100 subjects and the lack of a true control group, as participants in our comparison group had mild DED. To evaluate the normal range of FVA in specific age groups, we need to establish a population-based study enrolling thousands of subjects. Another significant limitation was the lack of checking for refractive error, which could affect FVA values. We did not perform fluorescein BUT in this study. Our findings may have selection bias, as subjects enrolled were from a single hospital in Singapore. In addition, the DryeyeKT application only assessed the differences in FVA between the two groups on near vision. Future studies could be done to study the impact of dry eye symptoms on distant vision.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, dry eye disease is a multifactorial disease anticipated to be increasing in prevalence as our society ages. Dry eye disease causes a significant reduction in the functional visual acuity of patients, which is often not picked up on conventional visual acuity testing. Dynamic methods of testing specific for patients with DED are recommended, and consideration can be given to starting treatment in patients with significant loss of QOL or difficulty performing daily visually dependent activities as a result of their dry eye.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.T. and L.H.-P.T.; formal analysis, L.T. and L.H.-P.T.; investigation, L.T. and L.H.-P.T.; methodology, L.T. and L.H.-P.T.; project administration, L.T.; writing—original draft, L.T. and L.H.-P.T.; writing—review and editing, L.T. and L.H.-P.T.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Health, Singapore (MOH-CSASI23jan-0001) and partially funded by Alcon Pte Ltd.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the tenets in the Declaration of Helsinki that are consistent with the Good Clinical Practice and Human Biomedical Research Act, Singapore. The Singhealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (CIRB) approved the protocol prospectively.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study may be available on request from the correspondence author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Sharon Yeo Wan Jie for the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Jie, Y.; Xu, L.; Wu, Y.Y.; Jonas, J.B. Prevalence of dry eye among adult Chinese in the Beijing Eye Study. Eye 2009, 23, 688–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Stapleton, F.; Alves, M.; Bunya, V.Y.; Jalbert, I.; Lekhanont, K.; Malet, F.; Na, K.-S.; Schaumberg, D.; Uchino, M.; Vehof, J.; et al. TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report. Ocul. Surf. 2017, 15, 334–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tian, Y.-J.; Liu, Y.; Zou, H.-D. Epidemiologic study of dry eye in populations equal or over 20 years old in Jiangning Dis-trict of Shanghai. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi 2009, 45, 486–491. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Tong, L.; Saw, S.-M.; Lamoureux, E.L. A Questionnaire-Based Assessment of Symptoms Associated with Tear Film Dys-function and Lid Margin Disease in an Asian Population. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2009, 16, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Viso, E.; Rodriguez-Ares, M.T.; Gude, F. Prevalence of and associated factors for dry eye in a Spanish adult population (the Salnes Eye Study). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2009, 16, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Le, Q.; Zhou, X.; Ge, L.; Wu, L.; Hong, J.; Xu, J. Impact of Dry Eye Syndrome on Vision-Related Quality of Life in a Non-Clinic-Based General Population. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012, 12, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sayegh, R.R.; Yu, Y.; Farrar, F.J.T.; Kuklinski, E.J.; Shtein, R.M.; Asbell, P.A.; Maguire, M.G. Ocular Discomfort and Quality of Life Among Patients in the Dry Eye Assessment and Management (DREAM) Study. Cornea 2021, 40, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Paulsen, A.J.; Cruickshanks, K.J.; Fischer, M.E.; Huang, G.-H.; Klein, B.E.; Klein, R.; Dalton, D.S. Dry eye in the beaver dam offspring study: Prevalence, risk factors, and health-related quality of life. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2014, 157, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Goto, E.; Yagi, Y.; Matsumoto, Y.; Tsubota, K. Impaired functional visual acuity of dry eye patients. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2002, 133, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Miljanović, B.; Dana, R.; Sullivan, D.A.; Schaumberg, D.A. Impact of dry eye syndrome on vision-related quality of life. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2007, 143, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tong, L.; Waduthantri, S.; Wong, T.Y.; Saw, S.M.; Wang, J.J.; Rosman, M.; Lamoureux, E. Impact of symptomatic dry eye on vision-related daily activities: The Singapore Malay Eye Study. Eye 2010, 24, 1486–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ding, J.; Sullivan, D.A. Aging and dry eye disease. Exp. Gerontol. 2012, 47, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Schaumberg, D.A.; Nichols, J.J.; Papas, E.B.; Tong, L.; Uchino, M.; Nichols, K.K. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: Report of the subcommittee on the epidemiology of, and associated risk factors for, MGD. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011, 52, 1994–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wolffsohn, J.S.; Arita, R.; Chalmers, R.; Djalilian, A.; Dogru, M.; Dumbleton, K.; Gupta, P.K.; Karpecki, P.; Lazreg, S.; Pult, H.; et al. TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report. Ocul. Surf. 2017, 15, 539–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tsubota, K. Tear dynamics and dry eye. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 1998, 17, 565–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Garcia-Queiruga, J.; Pena-Verdeal, H.; Sabucedo-Villamarin, B.; Giraldez, M.J.; Garcia-Resua, C.; Yebra-Pimentel, E. A cross-sectional study of non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors of dry eye disease states. Cont. Lens Anterior Eye 2023, 46, 101800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wolffsohn, J.S.; Wang, M.T.; Vidal-Rohr, M.; Menduni, F.; Dhallu, S.; Ipek, T.; Acar, D.; Recchioni, A.; France, A.; Kingsnorth, A.; et al. Demographic and lifestyle risk factors of dry eye disease subtypes: A cross-sectional study. Ocul. Surf. 2021, 21, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Savini, G.; Prabhawasat, P.; Kojima, T.; Grueterich, M.; Espana, E.; Goto, E. The challenge of dry eye diagnosis. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2008, 2, 31–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tutt, R.; Bradley, A.; Begley, C.; Thibos, L.N. Optical and visual impact of tear break-up in human eyes. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2000, 41, 4117–4123. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pflugfelder, S.C. Tear dysfunction and the cornea: LXVIII Edward Jackson Memorial Lecture. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 152, 900–909.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Spadea, L.; Maraone, G.; Verboschi, F.; Vingolo, E.M.; Tognetto, D. Effect of corneal light scatter on vision: A review of the literature. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2016, 9, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Koh, S.; Maeda, N.; Ikeda, C.; Asonuma, S.; Mitamura, H.; Oie, Y.; Soma, T.; Tsujikawa, M.; Kawasaki, S.; Nishida, K. Ocular forward light scattering and corneal backward light scattering in patients with dry eye. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014, 55, 6601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Prause, J.U.; Norn, M. Relation between blink frequency and break-up time? Acta Ophthalmol. 1987, 65, 19–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Okumura, Y.; Inomata, T.; Midorikawa-Inomata, A.; Sung, J.; Fujio, K.; Akasaki, Y.; Nakamura, M.; Iwagami, M.; Fujimoto, K.; Eguchi, A.; et al. DryEyeRhythm: A reliable and valid smartphone application for the diagnosis assistance of dry eye. Ocul. Surf. 2022, 25, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Uchino, M.; Kawashima, M.; Uchino, Y.; Suzuki, N.; Mitamura, H.; Mizuno, M.; Hori, Y.; Yokoi, N.; Tsubota, K. The evaluation of dry eye mobile apps for screening of dry eye disease and educational tear event in Japan. Ocul. Surf. 2018, 16, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Singh, S.; Srivastav, S.; Modiwala, Z.; Ali, M.H.; Basu, S. Repeatability, reproducibility and agreement between three different diagnostic imaging platforms for tear film evaluation of normal and dry eye disease. Eye 2023, 37, 2042–2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Samra, K. The eye and visual system in pregnancy, what to expect? An in-depth review. Oman J. Ophthalmol. 2013, 6, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tomita, Y.; Nagai, N.; Suzuki, M.; Shinoda, H.; Uchida, A.; Mochimaru, H.; Izumi-Nagai, K.; Sasaki, M.; Tsubota, K.; Ozawa, Y. Functional visual acuity in age-related macular degeneration. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2016, 93, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Taylor, S.R.J.; Lightman, S.L.; Sugar, E.A.; Jaffe, G.J.; Freeman, W.R.; Altaweel, M.M.; Kozak, I.; Holbrook, J.T.; Jabs, D.A.; Kempen, J.H. The impact of macular edema on visual function in intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. Ocul. Immunol. Inflamm. 2012, 20, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alves, M.; Asbell, P.; Dogru, M.; Giannaccare, G.; Grau, A.; Gregory, D.; Kim, D.H.; Marini, M.C.; Ngo, W.; Nowinska, A.; et al. TFOS Lifestyle Report: Impact of environmental conditions on the ocular surface. Ocul. Surf. 2023, 29, 1–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gomes, J.A.P.; Azar, D.T.; Baudouin, C.; Bitton, E.; Chen, W.; Hafezi, F.; Hamrah, P.; Hogg, R.E.; Horwath-Winter, J.; Kontadakis, G.A.; et al. TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of elective medications and procedures on the ocular surface. Ocul. Surf. 2023, 29, 331–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Finger, R.P.; Tellis, B.; Crewe, J.; Keeffe, J.E.; Ayton, L.N.; Guymer, R.H. Developing the impact of Vision Impairment-Very Low Vision (IVI-VLV) questionnaire as part of the LoVADA protocol. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014, 55, 6150–6158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lamoureux, E.L.; Pallant, J.F.; Pesudovs, K.; Rees, G.; Hassell, J.B.; Keeffe, J.E. The impact of vision impairment questionnaire: An assessment of its domain structure using confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007, 48, 1001–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Finger, R.P.; Fenwick, E.; Marella, M.; Dirani, M.; Holz, F.G.; Chiang, P.P.-C.; Lamoureux, E.L. The impact of vision impairment on vision-specific quality of life in Germany. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011, 52, 3613–3619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ratanasukon, M.; Tongsomboon, J.; Bhurayanontachai, P.; Jirarattanasopa, P. The Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) Questionnaire; Validation of the Thai-Version and the Implementation on Vision-Related Quality of Life in Thai Rural Community. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cochrane, G.M.; Marella, M.; Keeffe, J.E.; Lamoureux, E.L. The Impact of Vision Impairment for Children (IVI_C): Validation of a vision-specific pediatric quality-of-life questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011, 52, 1632–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Cochrane, G.; Lamoureux, E.; Keeffe, J. Defining the content for a new quality of life questionnaire for students with low vision (the Impact of Vision Impairment on Children: IVI_C). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008, 15, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Woods, J.; Varikooty, J.; Fonn, D.; Jones, L.W. A novel scale for describing corneal staining. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2018, 12, 2369–2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ngo, W.; Situ, P.; Keir, N.; Korb, D.; Blackie, C.; Simpson, T. Psychometric properties and validation of the standard patient evaluation of eye dryness questionnaire. Cornea 2013, 32, 1204–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Singh, S.; Donthineni, P.R.; Srivastav, S.; Jacobi, C.; Basu, S.; Paulsen, F. Lacrimal and meibomian gland evaluation in dry eye disease: A mini-review. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2023, 71, 1090–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Arita, R.; Itoh, K.; Maeda, S.; Maeda, K.; Furuta, A.; Fukuoka, S.; Tomidokoro, A.; Amano, S. Proposed diagnostic criteria for obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction. Ophthalmology 2009, 116, 2058–2063.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Woods, J.; Hutchings, N.; Srinivasan, S.; Jones, L. Geographic distribution of corneal staining in symptomatic dry eye. Ocul. Surf. 2020, 18, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Teo, C.H.Y.; Ong, H.S.; Liu, Y.-C.; Tong, L. Meibomian gland dysfunction is the primary determinant of dry eye symptoms: Analysis of 2346 patients. Ocul. Surf. 2020, 18, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chhadva, P.; Goldhardt, R.; Galor, A. Meibomian gland disease. Ophthalmology 2017, 124, S20–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tsubota, K.; Hata, S.; Okusawa, Y.; Egami, F.; Ohtsuki, T.; Nakamori, K. Quantitative videographic analysis of blinking in normal subjects and patients with dry eye. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1996, 114, 715–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Evinger, C.; Bao, J.-B.; Powers, A.S.; Kassem, I.S.; Schicatano, E.J.; Henriquez, V.M.; Peshori, K.R. Dry eye, blinking, and blepharospasm. Mov. Disord. 2002, 17 (Suppl. S2), S75–S78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tseng, S.C.; Tsubota, K. Important concepts for treating ocular surface and tear disorders. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1997, 124, 825–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rolando, M.; Refojo, M.F. Tear evaporimeter for measuring water evaporation rate from the tear film under controlled conditions in humans. Exp. Eye Res. 1983, 36, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ridder, W.H., 3rd; Tomlinson, A.; Huang, J.-F.; Li, J. Impaired visual performance in patients with dry eye. Ocul. Surf. 2011, 9, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Goto, E.; Ishida, R.; Kaido, M.; Dogru, M.; Matsumoto, Y.; Kojima, T.; Tsubota, K. Optical aberrations and visual disturbances associated with dry eye. Ocul. Surf. 2006, 4, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schlote, T.; Kadner, G.; Freudenthaler, N. Marked reduction and distinct patterns of eye blinking in patients with moderately dry eyes during video display terminal use. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2004, 242, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Yeo, S.; Tong, L. Coping with dry eyes: A qualitative approach. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018, 18, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tong, L.; Tan, J.; Thumboo, J.; Seow, G. Dry eye. BMJ 2012, 345, e7533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Deschamps, N.; Ricaud, X.; Rabut, G.; Labbé, A.; Baudouin, C.; Denoyer, A. The impact of dry eye disease on visual performance while driving. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2013, 156, 184–189.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Uchino, M.; Uchino, Y.; Dogru, M.; Kawashima, M.; Yokoi, N.; Komuro, A.; Sonomura, Y.; Kato, H.; Kinoshita, S.; Schaumberg, D.A.; et al. Dry eye disease and work productivity loss in visual display users: The Osaka study. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2014, 157, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Yamada, M.; Mizuno, Y.; Shigeyasu, C. Impact of dry eye on work productivity. Clin. Outcomes Res. 2012, 4, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Reddy, P.; Grad, O.; Rajagopalan, K. The economic burden of dry eye: A conceptual framework and preliminary assessment. Cornea 2004, 23, 751–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Uchino, M.; Schaumberg, D.A. Dry Eye Disease: Impact on Quality of Life and Vision. Curr. Ophthalmol. Rep. 2013, 1, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Galor, A.; Britten-Jones, A.C.; Feng, Y.; Ferrari, G.; Goldblum, D.; Gupta, P.K.; Merayo-Lloves, J.; Na, K.-S.; Naroo, S.A.; Nichols, K.K.; et al. TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of lifestyle challenges on the ocular surface. Ocul. Surf. 2023, 28, 262–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liyue, H.; Chiang, P.P.-C.; Sung, S.C.; Tong, L. Dry Eye-Related Visual Blurring and Irritative Symptoms and Their Association with Depression and Anxiety in Eye Clinic Patients. Curr. Eye Res. 2016, 41, 590–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Morthen, M.K.; Magno, M.S.; Utheim, T.P.; Snieder, H.; Hammond, C.J.; Vehof, J. The physical and mental burden of dry eye disease: A large population-based study investigating the relationship with health-related quality of life and its determinants. Ocul. Surf. 2021, 21, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Schein, O.D.; Muñoz, B.; Tielsch, J.M.; Bandeen-Roche, K.; West, S. Prevalence of dry eye among the elderly. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1997, 124, 723–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Moss, S.E.; Klein, R.; Klein, B.E. Prevalence of and risk factors for dry eye syndrome. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2000, 118, 1264–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. McCarty, C.A.; Bansal, A.K.; Livingston, P.M.; Stanislavsky, Y.L.; Taylor, H.R. The epidemiology of dry eye in Melbourne, Australia. Ophthalmology 1998, 105, 1114–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Den, S.; Shimizu, K.; Ikeda, T.; Tsubota, K.; Shimmura, S.; Shimazaki, J. Association between meibomian gland changes and aging, sex, or tear function. Cornea 2006, 25, 651–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Hykin, P.G.; Bron, A.J. Age-related morphological changes in lid margin and meibomian gland anatomy. Cornea 1992, 11, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Schaumberg, D.A.; Dana, R.; Buring, J.E.; Sullivan, D.A. Prevalence of dry eye disease among US men: Estimates from the Physicians’ Health Studies. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2009, 127, 763–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schaumberg, D.A.; Sullivan, D.A.; Buring, J.E.; Dana, M.R. Prevalence of dry eye syndrome among US women. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003, 136, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sullivan, B.D.; Evans, J.E.; Dana, M.R.; Sullivan, D.A. Influence of aging on the polar and neutral lipid profiles in human meibomian gland secretions. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2006, 124, 1286–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Norn, M. Expressibility of meibomian secretion. Relation to age, lipid precorneal film, scales, foam, hair and pigmentation. Acta Ophthalmol. 1987, 65, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Arita, R.; Itoh, K.; Inoue, K.; Amano, S. Noncontact infrared meibography to document age-related changes of the meibomian glands in a normal population. Ophthalmology 2008, 115, 911–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Sirigu, P.; Shen, R.L.; Pinto da Silva, P. Human meibomian glands: The ultrastructure of acinar cells as viewed by thin section and freeze-fracture transmission electron microscopies. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1992, 33, 2284–2292. [Google Scholar]
  73. Obata, H.; Horiuchi, H.; Miyata, K.; Tsuru, T.; Machinami, R. Histopathological study of the meibomian glands in 72 autopsy cases. Nihon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 1994, 98, 765–771. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  74. Obata, H. Anatomy and histopathology of human meibomian gland. Cornea 2002, 21 (Suppl. S7), S70–S74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Lane, J.; Zimmerman, M.; Mathers, W. Tear film changes associated with normal aging. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1996, 122, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nien, C.J.; Massei, S.; Lin, G.; Nabavi, C.; Tao, J.; Brown, D.J.; Paugh, J.R.; Jester, J.V. Effects of age and dysfunction on human meibomian glands. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2011, 129, 462–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kaido, M.; Ishida, R.; Dogru, M.; Tsubota, K. The relation of functional visual acuity measurement methodology to tear functions and ocular surface status. Jpn. J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 55, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tsubota, K.; Yokoi, N.; Shimazaki, J.; Watanabe, H.; Dogru, M.; Yamada, M.; Kinoshita, S.; Kim, H.-M.; Tchah, H.-W.; Hyon, J.Y.; et al. New Perspectives on Dry Eye Definition and Diagnosis: A Consensus Report by the Asia Dry Eye Society. Ocul. Surf. 2017, 15, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 07484 g001
Figure 1. Functional visual acuity (FVA) in females.
Figure 1. Functional visual acuity (FVA) in females.
Jcm 12 07484 g001
Jcm 12 07484 g002
Figure 2. Functional visual acuity (FVA) in males.
Figure 2. Functional visual acuity (FVA) in males.
Jcm 12 07484 g002
Jcm 12 07484 g003
Figure 3. Correlation between age and functional visual acuity (FVA).
Figure 3. Correlation between age and functional visual acuity (FVA).
Jcm 12 07484 g003
Jcm 12 07484 g004
Figure 4. Correlation between age and functional visual acuity (FVA) by group.
Figure 4. Correlation between age and functional visual acuity (FVA) by group.
Jcm 12 07484 g004
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants in Severe DED and Mild DED groups.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants in Severe DED and Mild DED groups.
OverallSevere DEDMild DEDp-Value
Overall N (%)78 (100)30 (38.5)48 (61.5)
Gender N (%)
Male20 (25.6)8 (40)12 (60)1.00
Female58 (74.4)22 (37.9)36 (62.1)
Age
Mean (SD)63.1 (10.7)63.9 (11.2)62.7 (10.4)0.63
<50 years9361.00
≥50 years692742
DED: dry eye disease. SD: standard deviation.
Table 2. Ophthalmic and medical conditions of participants in Severe DED and Mild DED groups.
Table 2. Ophthalmic and medical conditions of participants in Severe DED and Mild DED groups.
Overall
(n = 78)		Severe DED
(n = 30)		Mild DED
(n = 48)		p-Value
Allergies (Eczema, sinusitis, childhood asthma)
Present2310130.62
Absent552035
Dry mouth
Present209110.60
Absent582137
Contact lens
Wearer4220.64
Non-wearer742846
Systemic diseases
Rheumatoid Arthritis3210.56
Thyroid disease7341.00
Sjogren’s syndrome4310.29
Diabetes Mellitus Type I7341.00
Diabetes Mellitus Type II2020.52
Diet-controlled or Impaired glucose tolerance1011.00
None of the above582137
Medications
Oral contraceptives0001.00
Antihistamine8170.14
Anti-hypertensive197121.00
Antidepressants0001.00
Anti-Parkinson’s0001.00
Lomotil0001.00
Immunosuppressant (Prednisolone, cyclosporine, SMF, tacrolimus)2111.00
None of the above512229
History of Ocular surgery
LASIK
R eye2111.00
L eye0001.00
Bilateral4131.00
Cataract 1
R eye1100.39
L eye2020.52
Bilateral2212100.077
Others 26330.67
Smoking0001.00
1 Cataracts are not clinically significant. 2 Three participants in the Severe DED group underwent laser peripheral iridotomy to both eyes, blepharoplasty to both eyes and an unspecified ocular surgery for complication of DM Type II, respectively. Three participants in the Mild DED group underwent multiple right eyelid surgery for ptosis, squint surgery and surgery for glaucoma (micropulse laser trans-scleral cyclophotocoagulation and trabeculectomy), respectively. DED: dry eye disease.
Table 3. Assessment of dry eye—non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT), corneal fluorescein staining grade and standard patient evaluation of eye dryness (SPEED) scores.
Table 3. Assessment of dry eye—non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT), corneal fluorescein staining grade and standard patient evaluation of eye dryness (SPEED) scores.
Overall
(n = 78)		Severe DED
(n = 30)		Mild DED
(n = 48)		p-Value
NIBUT (%) R eye
<3 s n (%)11 (14.1)2 (18.2)9 (81.8)0.19
> or =3 s n (%)67 (85.9)28 (41.8)39 (58.2)
NIBUT (%) L eye
<3 s n (%)12 (15.4)8 (66.7)4 (33.3)0.050
> or =3 s n (%)66 (84.6)22 (33.3)44 (66.7)
NIBUT (s)
Mean (SD)8.29 (6.35)6.89 (5.46)9.15 (6.73)0.13
Staining grade (superior)
R eye
Mean (SD)0.22 (0.66)0.55 (0.97)0.02 (0.14)<0.001
Staining grade (inferior)
R eye
Mean (SD)1.18 (1.41)2.45 (1.35)0.39 (0.67)<0.001
Staining grade (nasal)
R eye
Mean (SD)0.83 (1.32)1.97 (1.50)0.13 (0.38)<0.001
Staining grade (temporal)
R eye
Mean (SD)0.64 (1.11)1.52 (1.32)0.09 (0.41)<0.001
Staining grade (central)
R eye
Mean (SD)0.63 (1.12)1.65 (1.27)0 (0)<0.001
Staining grade (total)
R eye
Mean (SD)3.51 (4.88)8.13 (5.05)0.63 (1.07)<0.001
Staining grade (superior)
L eye
Mean (SD)0.46 (0.83)1.03 (1.02)0.10 (0.37)<0.001
Staining grade (inferior)
L eye
Mean (SD)1.21 (1.48)2.57 (1.40)0.35 (0.68)<0.001
Staining grade (nasal)
L eye
Mean (SD)1.12 (1.45)2.55 (1.33)0.23 (0.47)<0.001
Staining grade (temporal)
L eye
Mean (SD)0.81 (1.37)2.05 (1.53)0.04 (0.20)<0.001
Staining grade (central)
L eye
Mean (SD)0.79 (1.32)2.07 (1.38)0 (0)<0.001
Staining grade (total)
L eye
Mean (SD)4.40 (5.70)10.3 (5.19)0.73 (0.99)<0.001
SPEED
Mean (SD)6.40 (6.32)8.17 (6.64)5.29 (5.92)0.050
DED: dry eye disease. SD: standard deviation.
Table 4. Results of Schirmer test in both groups.
Table 4. Results of Schirmer test in both groups.
Overall
(n = 77)		Severe DED
(n = 30)		Mild DED
(n = 47 1)		p-Value
Schirmer reading (R eye)
Mean (SD)6.56 (8.70)3.53 (5.54)8.49 (9.80)0.014
Schirmer reading (R eye)
Normal (>15 mm)10190.079
Low normal (11–15 mm)6241.00
Borderline (6–10 mm)11471.00
Abnormal (<6 mm)5023270.094
Schirmer reading (L eye)
Mean (SD)6.14 (8.53)4.1 (7.10)7.45 (9.17)0.093
Schirmer reading (L eye)
Normal (>15 mm)9180.082
Low normal (10–15 mm)5320.37
Borderline (6–10 mm)13490.76
Abnormal (<6 mm)5022280.23
1 Schirmer’s test was not conducted for one patient in the Mild DED group due to patient refusal. DED: dry eye disease. SD: standard deviation.
Table 5. Meibomian gland expression and character in Severe DED and Mild DED groups.
Table 5. Meibomian gland expression and character in Severe DED and Mild DED groups.
Overall
(n = 78)		Severe DED
(n = 30)		Mild DED
(n = 48)		p-Value
Number of Meibomian glands expressed (R eye)
Mean (SD)2.14 (1.86)2.03 (1.75)2.21 (1.93)0.69
Median (Range)2 (0–8)2 (0–6)2 (0–8)
Meibomian gland expression character
(R eye)
Liquid5316370.045
Viscous181080.11
Not expressible7430.42
Number of Meibomian glands expressed (L eye)
Mean (SD)2.76 (2.34)2.57 (2.03)2.88 (2.53)0.58
Median (Range)3 (0–10)2 (0–8)3 (0–10)
Meibomian gland expression character
(L eye)
Liquid5315380.012
Viscous191180.060
Not expressible6420.20
DED: dry eye disease. SD: standard deviation.
Table 6. Summary of FVA in Severe DED and Mild DED groups.
Table 6. Summary of FVA in Severe DED and Mild DED groups.
OverallSevere DED 1Mild DEDp-Value
Mean (SD)0.67 (0.28)0.60 (0.28)0.71 (0.28)0.096
N762848
Gender
Male
Mean (SD)0.72 (0.29)0.80 (0.37)0.66 (0.22)0.29
N20812
Female
Mean (SD)0.66 (0.28)0.52 (0.20)0.73 (0.30)0.006
N562036
Age
≤50 years
Mean (SD)0.96 (0.35)0.84 (0.23)1.02 (0.40)0.49
N936
>50 years
Mean (SD)0.63 (0.25)0.57 (0.28)0.67 (0.23)0.13
N672542
1 The FVA test was not conducted for two patients in the Severe DED group. FVA: functional visual acuity. DED: dry eye disease. SD: standard deviation.
Table 7. Functional visual acuity (FVA) association with other clinical parameters of dry eye.
Table 7. Functional visual acuity (FVA) association with other clinical parameters of dry eye.
Overall
(n = 76)		FVA ≤ 0.6
(n = 32)		FVA > 0.6
(n = 44)		p-Value
Gender N (%)
Male208 (40)12 (60)1.00
Female5624 (42.9)32 (57.1)
Age
Mean (SD)62.8 (10.6)68.2 (7.68)58.9 (10.7)<0.001
Staining Grade (total)
Mean (SD)3.67 (5.08)4.42 (5.10)3.13 (5.02)0.28
NIBUT (s) 1
Mean (SD)8.39 (6.39)7.26 (5.50)9.22 (6.89)0.19
Schirmer 2
Mean (SD)6.45 (8.66)3.15 (3.69)8.78 (10.3)0.005
Number of Meibomian glands expressed
Mean (SD)2.46 (2.14)2.17 (2.18)2.67 (2.10)0.32
Median (Range)2 (0–10)2 (0–10)3 (0–9)
SPEED 3
Mean (SD)6.43 (6.35)6.03 (7.01)6.73 (5.88)0.64
1 NIBUT = Non-invasive tear break-up time. 2 The Schirmer test was not conducted for one patient in the Mild DED group. 3 SPEED = Standard patient evaluation of eye dryness. SD: standard deviation.
Table 8. Severe dry eye disease (DED) association with impact of vision impairment (IVI) questionnaire.
Table 8. Severe dry eye disease (DED) association with impact of vision impairment (IVI) questionnaire.
Overall
(n = 78)		Severe DED
(n = 30)		Comparison
(n = 48)		p-Value
IVI (Total)
Mean (SD)75.9 (12.5)75.2 (11.1)76.3 (13.3)0.7
Median (Range)82 (13–82)82 (39–82)82 (13–82)
Gender
Male
Mean (SD)73.8 (12.4)69 (12.0)76.9 (12.2)0.17
Median (Range)82 (45–82)68 (52–82)82 (45–82)
N20812
Female
Mean (SD)76.6 (12.5)77.4 (10.1)76.1 (13.8)0.7
Median (Range)82 (13–82)82 (39–82)82 (13–82)
N582236
Age
≤50 years
Mean (SD)74.4 (12.5)74.3 (7.09)74.5 (15.1)0.99
Median (Range)81 (44–82)73 (68–82)81.5 (44–82)
N936
>50 years
Mean (SD)76.0 (12.5)75.3 (11.6)76.5 (13.2)0.68
Median (Range)82 (13–82)82 (39–82)82 (13–82)
N692742
IVI Q1 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with your ability to see and enjoy TV?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time12660.52
Not at all652441
Don’t do this for other reasons101
IVI Q2 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with taking part in recreational activities such as bowling, walking or golf?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time5140.65
Not at all702743
Don’t do this for other reasons321
IVI Q3 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with shopping (finding what you want and paying for it)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time10370.73
Not at all672641
Don’t do this for other reasons110
IVI Q4 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with visiting friends or family?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time6241
Not at all712744
Don’t do this for other reasons110
IVI Q5 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with recognising or meeting people?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time7520.1
Not at all712546
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q6 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with generally looking after your appearance (face, hair, clothing, etc.)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4131
Not at all742945
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q7 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with opening packaging (for example, around food, medicines)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4131
Not at all742945
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q8 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with reading labels or instructions on medicines?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time10370.73
Not at all682741
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q9 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with operating household appliances and the telephone?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4040.16
Not at all743044
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q10 How much has your eyesight interfered with moving about outdoors (on the pavement or crossing the street)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time8351
Not at all702743
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q11 In the past month, how much has your eyesight made you move carefully to avoid falling or tripping?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time10461
Not at all662541
Don’t do this for other reasons211
IVI Q12 In general, how much has your eyesight interfered with travelling or using transport (bus and train)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time10640.18
Not at all672443
Don’t do this for other reasons101
IVI Q13 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with going down steps, stairs or curbs?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time13850.12
Not at all652243
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q14 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with reading ordinary size print (for example, newspapers)?
A lot, a fair amount13490.76
Not at all642638
Don’t do this for other reasons101
IVI Q15 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with getting information that you need?
A lot, a fair amount12571
Not at all662541
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q16 In the past month, how much has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about your general safety at home?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time6330.67
Not at all722745
IVI Q17 In the past month, how much has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about spilling or breaking things?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4131
Not at all742945
IVI Q18 In the past month, how much has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about your general safety when out of your home?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time8530.25
Not at all702545
IVI Q19 In the past month, how often has your eyesight stopped you from doing the things you want to do?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time12660.52
Not at all662442
IVI Q20 In the past month, how often have you needed help from other people because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time8530.25
Not at all702545
IVI Q21 Have you felt embarrassed because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time5320.37
Not at all732746
IVI Q22 Have you felt frustrated or annoyed because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time176111
Not at all612437
IVI Q23 Have you felt lonely or isolated because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4220.64
Not at all742846
IVI Q24 Have you ever felt sad or low because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time11650.32
Not at all672443
IVI Q25 In the past month, how often have you worried about your eyesight getting worse?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time2210120.45
Not at all562036
IVI Q26 In the past month, how often has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about coping with everyday life?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time171070.089
Not at all612041
IVI Q27 Have you felt like a nuisance or a burden because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time8440.48
Not at all702644
IVI Q28 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with your life in general?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time171070.089
Not at all612041
Table 9. Multiple logistic regression with Q26, “How often has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about coping with everyday life?”, as the dependent variable.
Table 9. Multiple logistic regression with Q26, “How often has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about coping with everyday life?”, as the dependent variable.
ParameterModel 1 †
Odds Ratio
(95% Confidence Interval)		Model 2 ††
Odds Ratio
(95% Confidence Interval)		Model 3 †††
Odds Ratio
(95% Confidence Interval)
Dry eye status3.25 (1.07, 9.91) *3.79 (1.19, 12.07) *3.34 (1.02, 10.95) *
* p-value < 0.05; † Adjusted for dry eye status (0 = Mild DED group, 1 = Severe DED group); †† Adjusted for dry eye status, age and gender; ††† Adjusted for dry eye status, age, gender and FVA (continuous). DED: dry eye disease. FVA: functional visual acuity.
Table 10. Multiple logistic regression with Q28, “How much has your eyesight interfered with your life in general?”, as the dependent variable.
Table 10. Multiple logistic regression with Q28, “How much has your eyesight interfered with your life in general?”, as the dependent variable.
ParameterModel 1 †
Odds Ratio
(95% Confidence Interval)		Model 2 ††
Odds Ratio
(95% Confidence Interval)		Model 3 †††
Odds Ratio
(95% Confidence Interval)
Dry eye status3.25 (1.07, 9.91) *4.12 (1.23, 13.84) *3.84 (1.12, 13.2) *
* p-value < 0.05; † Adjusted for dry eye status (0 = Mild DED group, 1 = Severe DED group); †† Adjusted for dry eye status, age and gender; ††† Adjusted for dry eye status, age, gender and FVA (continuous). DED: dry eye disease. FVA: functional visual acuity.
Table 11. Functional visual acuity (FVA) association with impact of vision impairment (IVI) questionnaire.
Table 11. Functional visual acuity (FVA) association with impact of vision impairment (IVI) questionnaire.
Overall
(n = 76)		FVA ≤ 0.6
(n = 32)		FVA > 0.6
(n = 44)		p-Value
IVI (Total)
Mean (SD)75.7 (12.6)73.8 (15.9)77.0 (9.43)0.28
Median (Range)82 (13–82)82 (13–82)82 (44–82)
IVI Q1 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with your ability to see and enjoy TV?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time12480.54
Not at all632835
Don’t do this for other reasons101
IVI Q2 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with taking part in recreational activities such as bowling, walking or golf?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time5231
Not at all682741
Don’t do this for other reasons330
IVI Q3 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with shopping (finding what you want and paying for it)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time10461
Not at all652738
Don’t do this for other reasons110
IVI Q4 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with visiting friends or family?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time6420.39
Not at all692841
Don’t do this for other reasons101
IVI Q5 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with recognising or meeting people?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time7430.45
Not at all692841
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q6 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with generally looking after your appearance (face, hair, clothing, etc.)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4130.63
Not at all723141
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q7 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with opening packaging (for example, around food, medicines)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4221
Not at all723042
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q8 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with reading labels or instructions on medicines?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time10280.18
Not at all663036
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q9 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with operating household appliances and the telephone?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4221
Not at all723042
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q10 How much has your eyesight interfered with moving about outdoors (on the pavement or crossing the street)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time8351
Not at all682939
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q11 In the past month, how much has your eyesight made you move carefully to avoid falling or tripping?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time10550.51
Not at all642539
Don’t do this for other reasons220
IVI Q12 In general, how much has your eyesight interfered with travelling or using transport (bus and train)?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time10640.3
Not at all652540
Don’t do this for other reasons110
IVI Q13 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with going down steps, stairs or curbs?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time13760.37
Not at all632538
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q14 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with reading ordinary size print (for example, newspapers)?
A lot, a fair amount13581
Not at all622636
Don’t do this for other reasons110
IVI Q15 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with getting information that you need?
A lot, a fair amount12480.55
Not at all642836
Don’t do this for other reasons000
IVI Q16 In the past month, how much has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about your general safety at home?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time6330.69
Not at all702941
IVI Q17 In the past month, how much has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about spilling or breaking things?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4310.3
Not at all722943
IVI Q18 In the past month, how much has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about your general safety when out of your home?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time8440.71
Not at all682840
IVI Q19 In the past month, how often has your eyesight stopped you from doing the things you want to do?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time12750.34
Not at all642539
IVI Q20 In the past month, how often have you needed help from other people because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time8530.27
Not at all682741
IVI Q21 Have you felt embarrassed because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time5320.64
Not at all712942
IVI Q22 Have you felt frustrated or annoyed because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time177101
Not at all592534
IVI Q23 Have you felt lonely or isolated because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time4221
Not at all723042
IVI Q24 Have you ever felt sad or low because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time11561
Not at all652738
IVI Q25 In the past month, how often have you worried about your eyesight getting worse?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time229131
Not at all542331
IVI Q26 In the past month, how often has your eyesight made you concerned or worried about coping with everyday life?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time177101
Not at all592534
IVI Q27 Have you felt like a nuisance or a burden because of your eyesight?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time8530.27
Not at all682741
IVI Q28 In the past month, how much has your eyesight interfered with your life in general?
A lot, a fair amount, a little of the time176110.59
Not at all592633
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tan, L.H.-P.; Tong, L. The Association of Dry Eye Disease with Functional Visual Acuity and Quality of Life. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7484. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12237484

AMA Style

Tan LH-P, Tong L. The Association of Dry Eye Disease with Functional Visual Acuity and Quality of Life. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(23):7484. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12237484

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tan, Lydia Hui-Peng, and Louis Tong. 2023. "The Association of Dry Eye Disease with Functional Visual Acuity and Quality of Life" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 23: 7484. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12237484

APA Style

Tan, L. H. -P., & Tong, L. (2023). The Association of Dry Eye Disease with Functional Visual Acuity and Quality of Life. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(23), 7484. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12237484

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop