Priya M Mathews1, Pradeep Y Ramulu1, Bonnielin S Swenor1, Canan A Utine1,2, Gary S Rubin3,4, Esen K Akpek1. 1. The Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey. 3. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College of London, London, UK. 4. Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the impact of dry eye on reading performance. METHODS: Out-loud and silent reading in patients with clinically significant dry eye (n=41) and controls (n=50) was evaluated using standardised texts. Dry eye measures included tear film break-up time, Schirmer's test and corneal epithelial staining. Symptoms were assessed by the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). RESULTS: The dry eye group had a greater proportion of women as compared with the control group but did not differ in age, race, education level or visual acuity (p≥0.05 for all). Out-loud reading speed averaged 148 words per minute (wpm) in dry eye subjects and 163 wpm in controls (p=0.006). Prolonged silent reading speed averaged 199 wpm in dry eye subjects versus 226 wpm in controls (p=0.03). In multivariable regression models, out-loud and sustained silent reading speeds were 10 wpm (95% CI -20 to -1 wpm, p=0.039) and 14% (95% CI -25% to -2%, p=0.032) slower, respectively, in dry eye subjects as compared with controls. Greater corneal staining was associated with slower out-loud (-2 wpm/1 unit increase in staining score, 95% CI =-3 to -0.3 wpm) and silent (-2%, 95% CI -4 to -0.6 wpm) reading speeds (p<0.02 for both). Significant interactions were found between OSDI score and word-specific features (longer and less commonly used words) on out-loud reading speed (p<0.05 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Dry eye is associated with slower out-loud and silent reading speeds, providing direct evidence regarding the functional impact of dry eye. Reading speed represents a measurable clinical finding that correlates directly with dry eye severity. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the impact of dry eye on reading performance. METHODS: Out-loud and silent reading in patients with clinically significant dry eye (n=41) and controls (n=50) was evaluated using standardised texts. Dry eye measures included tear film break-up time, Schirmer's test and corneal epithelial staining. Symptoms were assessed by the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). RESULTS: The dry eye group had a greater proportion of women as compared with the control group but did not differ in age, race, education level or visual acuity (p≥0.05 for all). Out-loud reading speed averaged 148 words per minute (wpm) in dry eye subjects and 163 wpm in controls (p=0.006). Prolonged silent reading speed averaged 199 wpm in dry eye subjects versus 226 wpm in controls (p=0.03). In multivariable regression models, out-loud and sustained silent reading speeds were 10 wpm (95% CI -20 to -1 wpm, p=0.039) and 14% (95% CI -25% to -2%, p=0.032) slower, respectively, in dry eye subjects as compared with controls. Greater corneal staining was associated with slower out-loud (-2 wpm/1 unit increase in staining score, 95% CI =-3 to -0.3 wpm) and silent (-2%, 95% CI -4 to -0.6 wpm) reading speeds (p<0.02 for both). Significant interactions were found between OSDI score and word-specific features (longer and less commonly used words) on out-loud reading speed (p<0.05 for both). CONCLUSIONS:Dry eye is associated with slower out-loud and silent reading speeds, providing direct evidence regarding the functional impact of dry eye. Reading speed represents a measurable clinical finding that correlates directly with dry eye severity. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Peter J McDonnell; Stephen C Pflugfelder; Michael E Stern; David R Hardten; Taryn Conway; Linda Villanueva; David A Hollander Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 2.209