4.5 Article

Sjogren's syndrome in optometric practices in North America

Journal

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
Volume 41, Issue 6, Pages 518-526

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2018.08.006

Keywords

Sjogren's syndrome; Dry eye; Corneal staining

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian Sjogren's Syndrome Society
  2. Labtician

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe the presentation of dry eye in Sjogren's syndrome (SS) in optometric practices, to report on the methodology used in dry eye monitoring and to explore the level of corneal staining versus age and time of disease. Methods: Records of SS patients were reviewed in 6 optometric sites. A standardized abstraction tool was developed to collect data from the records including: health history, medications and symptoms and signs of dry eye. The methods of testing symptoms and signs of dry eye were recorded. Variables were recorded at each site and collated at the University of Waterloo. The first visit after January 1, 2000 was selected for description in this paper. Results: 123 charts were included. The average lime since diagnosis was 7.2 years +/- 5.1 years. Symptoms of dryness were present in 110/123 = 89.4% of charts. Corneal fluorescein staining was present in 96/123 = 78% of charts. MGD was present in 52% of charts. There were significant differences in the protocols and grading systems used in these 6 sites. Corneal staining levels did not change with greater age or length of disease. Conclusion: These 123 SS patients presented with a large variation in their symptoms and signs. Symptoms of dryness and corneal fluorescein staining were the most commonly recorded presentations. There was a great deal of inconsistency in dry eye protocols among offices. Future prospective research with standardized testing will contribute to our understanding of the best dry eye protocols for SS patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available