Thao N Yeh1, Andrew D Graham, Meng C Lin. 1. *OD, MPH, FAAO †MA ‡OD, PhD, FAAO Clinical Research Center, School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California (all authors).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the relationships among tear osmolarity, tear film stability, and several measures of dry eye (DE) symptoms in a multivariable analysis. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 137 subjects (68 non-contact lens [CL] wearers and 69 soft CL wearers) recruited from a university campus. Tear breakup time (TBUT) was measured noninvasively (NITBUT) and with fluorescein (FTBUT). Tear osmolarity was measured by an osmometer. Dry eye symptoms were assessed using the Dry Eye Flow Chart and several different questionnaires. RESULTS: Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 67 years, with a mean of 28 years. Subjects had a mean (SD) osmolarity of 293 (10) mOsm/L, NITBUT of 14.1 (10.9) seconds, and FTBUT of 14.8 (12.6) seconds. Shorter NITBUT and FTBUT were significantly associated with female sex (p = 0.001 and p = 0.027, respectively) and Asian ethnicity (p = 0.030 and p = 0.004, respectively). There were no clinically significant relationships between tear osmolarity and FTBUT, NITBUT, or DE symptoms. Higher Dry Eye Flow Chart score (i.e., worse symptoms) was associated with older age (p < 0.001), female sex (p = 0.014), CL wear (p < 0.001), shorter NITBUT (p < 0.001), and shorter FTBUT (p = 0.028). The sensitivities and specificities for using clinical measurements to diagnose moderate to severe DE were as follows: osmolarity, 0.67 and 0.46, respectively; NITBUT, 0.72 and 0.52, respectively; and FTBUT, 0.68 and 0.57, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a population of asymptomatic, mild and moderate DE patients, increased tear osmolarity was not significantly associated with reported symptom severity and frequency. Tear osmolarity, NITBUT, and FTBUT exhibited similar sensitivities and specificities when used to diagnose moderate to severe DE.
PURPOSE: To examine the relationships among tear osmolarity, tear film stability, and several measures of dry eye (DE) symptoms in a multivariable analysis. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 137 subjects (68 non-contact lens [CL] wearers and 69 soft CL wearers) recruited from a university campus. Tear breakup time (TBUT) was measured noninvasively (NITBUT) and with fluorescein (FTBUT). Tear osmolarity was measured by an osmometer. Dry eye symptoms were assessed using the Dry Eye Flow Chart and several different questionnaires. RESULTS: Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 67 years, with a mean of 28 years. Subjects had a mean (SD) osmolarity of 293 (10) mOsm/L, NITBUT of 14.1 (10.9) seconds, and FTBUT of 14.8 (12.6) seconds. Shorter NITBUT and FTBUT were significantly associated with female sex (p = 0.001 and p = 0.027, respectively) and Asian ethnicity (p = 0.030 and p = 0.004, respectively). There were no clinically significant relationships between tear osmolarity and FTBUT, NITBUT, or DE symptoms. Higher Dry Eye Flow Chart score (i.e., worse symptoms) was associated with older age (p < 0.001), female sex (p = 0.014), CL wear (p < 0.001), shorter NITBUT (p < 0.001), and shorter FTBUT (p = 0.028). The sensitivities and specificities for using clinical measurements to diagnose moderate to severe DE were as follows: osmolarity, 0.67 and 0.46, respectively; NITBUT, 0.72 and 0.52, respectively; and FTBUT, 0.68 and 0.57, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a population of asymptomatic, mild and moderate DE patients, increased tear osmolarity was not significantly associated with reported symptom severity and frequency. Tear osmolarity, NITBUT, and FTBUT exhibited similar sensitivities and specificities when used to diagnose moderate to severe DE.
Authors: Rosa M Corrales; Michael E Stern; Cintia S De Paiva; Jonathan Welch; De-Quan Li; Stephen C Pflugfelder Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Benjamin D Sullivan; Leslie A Crews; Barış Sönmez; Maria F de la Paz; Ebru Comert; Victor Charoenrook; Aline L de Araujo; Jay S Pepose; Michael S Berg; Valerie P Kosheleff; Michael A Lemp Journal: Cornea Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Stephen S Lane; Harvey B DuBiner; Randy J Epstein; Paul H Ernest; Jack V Greiner; David R Hardten; Edward J Holland; Michael A Lemp; James E McDonald; David I Silbert; Caroline A Blackie; Christy A Stevens; Raman Bedi Journal: Cornea Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: R L Terry; C M Schnider; B A Holden; R Cornish; T Grant; D Sweeney; D La Hood; A Back Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Mark D P Willcox; Pablo Argüeso; Georgi A Georgiev; Juha M Holopainen; Gordon W Laurie; Tom J Millar; Eric B Papas; Jannick P Rolland; Tannin A Schmidt; Ulrike Stahl; Tatiana Suarez; Lakshman N Subbaraman; Omür Ö Uçakhan; Lyndon Jones Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Mark S Milner; Kenneth A Beckman; Jodi I Luchs; Quentin B Allen; Richard M Awdeh; John Berdahl; Thomas S Boland; Carlos Buznego; Joseph P Gira; Damien F Goldberg; David Goldman; Raj K Goyal; Mitchell A Jackson; James Katz; Terry Kim; Parag A Majmudar; Ranjan P Malhotra; Marguerite B McDonald; Rajesh K Rajpal; Tal Raviv; Sheri Rowen; Neda Shamie; Jonathan D Solomon; Karl Stonecipher; Shachar Tauber; William Trattler; Keith A Walter; George O Waring; Robert J Weinstock; William F Wiley; Elizabeth Yeu Journal: Curr Opin Ophthalmol Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Ali A Abusharha; Tariq M AlShehri; Abdullah Y Hakami; Ali M Alsaqr; Raied A Fagehi; Saud A Alanazi; Ali M Masmali Journal: Ther Adv Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-21
Authors: Norah A Albdaya; Faris H Binyousef; Maha H Alrashid; Abdullah A Alajlan; Faisal A Alsharif; Sulaiman K Alfouzan; Reem R Alhuthail Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-07-22
Authors: Pui Theng Yong; Norlaili Arif; Sharanjeet Sharanjeet-Kaur; Mohd Izzuddin Hairol Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 3.390