The Dry Eye Zone

Rebecca's Blog


Abstract: Dry eye test result commonality (or lack thereof)

This study takes a look at several different dry eye diagnostics - but only in mild to moderate dry eye - and compares the results from each, as well as comparing them to a symptoms survey.

Concordance between common dry eye diagnostic tests.Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Sep 9. [Epub ahead of print] Links
Graham JE, Moore JE, Goodall EA, Dartt DA, Leccisotti A, McGilligan VE, Moore TC.
Northern Ireland.

PURPOSE: Large variations in results of diagnostic tests for mild to moderate dry eye are widely recognised. The purpose of this study was to assess if there was concordance between common dry eye diagnostic tests.

METHODS: A total of 91 subjects were recruited to the study. The tear film and ocular surface were evaluated using the phenol red thread test, tear break up time (TBUT), biomicroscopic examination and impression cytological (IC) assessment of conjunctival goblet cells. Dry eye symptoms were assessed using McMonnies questionnaire and statistical correlations between all tests were assessed.

RESULTS: This study cohort did not include severe aqueous deficient dry eye patients as determined by the phenol red thread test (PRT). A statistically significant difference was noted between PRT results and all other tests (***P inverted exclamation markU 0.001). Only meibomian gland pathology, McMonnies questionnaire, reduced goblet cell density and TBUT ( inverted exclamation markU7 seconds) demonstrated correlation determined by McNemar inverted exclamation marks test.

CONCLUSION: A correlation was only found between tests assessing lipid/mucous deficiency (meibomian gland evaluation, goblet cells density, TBUT, and McMonnies questionnaire).