| Literature DB >> 25339991 |
Hyun A Cho1, Jae Jung Cheon1, Jong Seok Lee1, Soo Young Kim1, Seong Sil Chang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of dry eye syndrome (DES) among clean room (relative humidity ≤1%) workers from 2011 to 2013.Entities:
Keywords: Clean rooms; Dry eye syndromes; Humidity; Tear film
Year: 2014 PMID: 25339991 PMCID: PMC4205474 DOI: 10.1186/s40557-014-0026-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Occup Environ Med ISSN: 2052-4374
Characteristics of all workers in the clean room
| Sex | Male | 350 (99.4) |
| | Female | 2 (0.6) |
| Mean age (years) (mean ± SD) | 31.4 ± 6.1 | |
| Current smoker | Yes | 192 |
| | No | 157 |
| Alcohol consumption over the previous week | Under 70 ml | 165 |
| | Over 70 ml | 187 |
| Weekly working hours (hours) (mean ± SD) | 59.1 ± 8.7 | |
| Age (years) | 20–29 | 161 (45.7) |
| | 30–39 | 150 (42.6) |
| | 40–49 | 36 (10.2) |
| | 50–59 | 5 (1.5) |
| Position of employment | Team member (manufacturing) | 317 (90.1) |
| | Team leader (manufacturing) | 25 (7.1) |
| | Clerk (professional) | 2 (0.6) |
| Years worked in the clean room | <1 | 73 (20.7) |
| | 1 | 37 (10.5) |
| | 2 | 86 (24.4) |
| | 3 | 23 (6.5) |
| | 4 | 8 (2.3) |
| >5 | 50 (14.2) |
Figure 1Differences among 8 symptoms of dry eye from 2011 to 2013. *p-value <0.05.
Figure 2The grade of dry eye syndrome as measured by the Delphi approach from 2011 to 2013.
Dry eye examination results from 2011 to 2013
| | | | | | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFBUT | sec | 10.1 ± 5.1* | 7.7 ± 4.4 | 7.0 ± 3.2 | <0.01 |
| Schirmer’s test I | mm | 14.1 ± 8.0 | 14.3 ± 7.4 | 14.7 ± 8.8 | 0.61 |
| Corneal erosion | grade 1 | 20 (5.7%) | 36 (10.2%) | 30 (8.5%) | 0.24 |
| | grade 2 | 1 (0.0%) | 1 (0.0%) | 2 (0.0%) | |
| McMonnies questionnaire | score | 4.5 ± 3.5 | 5.2 ± 3.6 | 6.9 ± 3.9* | <0.01 |
| Dry eye grade | mean score | 0.7* | 0.8 | 0.8 | <0.01 |
Data were compared using a general linear model and post-hoc Tukey test. The total number of subjects is not 352 due to missing data. The number of participants of 2011 Mcmonnies questionnaire is 292. So, the number of 2011 dry eye grade are 292. Other data were all 352. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference in the post-hoc analysis. TFBUT, tear film break-up test.
Multiple logistic regression analysis of the dry eye examination results using data from each examination collected in 2013
| | | | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TFBUT | Normal vs. Abnormal | 0.947 | 0.851-1.055 |
| Schirmer’s test I (with anesthetic) | Normal vs, Abnormal | 1.000 | 0.900-1.112 |
| McMonnies questionnaire | Normal vs. Abnormal | 1.130* | 1.012-1.262 |
| Dry eye grade | Normal vs. Abnormal | 0.993 | 0.875-1.128 |
*p-value <0.05. All models were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, alcohol consumption and working hours per week. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence intervals; TFBUT, tear film break-up test.