4.7 Article

Seasonal variations in presenting symptoms and signs of dry eye disease in Norway

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-25557-9

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the seasonal variations of symptoms and signs of dry eye disease in Norway. It found that the severity level and self-reported symptoms of dry eye did not differ between seasons, but some parameters for assessing dry eye (such as Schirmer I and tear meniscus height) showed seasonal variations.
The study investigated the seasonal variations of presenting symptoms and signs of dry eye disease (DED) in Norway. 652 consecutive DED patients examined between August 2012 and May 2015 in Oslo, Norway, were included. Presenting symptoms and signs were related to the season according to when each patient was examined. Weather report data from the examination day were compared with the presenting symptoms and signs. Oslo's mean seasonal temperatures during spring, summer, fall, and winter were 6.4 degrees C, 15.6 degrees C, 9.3 degrees C, and - 2.1 degrees C, respectively. Dry eye severity level and self-reported symptoms measured by the Ocular surface disease index questionnaire did not differ between seasons. Schirmer I was lower during summer than in other seasons (P<0.01). The percentage of patients with a pathological tear meniscus height (<0.2 mm) was higher during fall (P<0.01) and lower during winter (P<0.05) compared to the other seasons. Signs and symptoms of DED generally did not correlate with weather report data, although intraocular pressure was weakly associated with mean daily air temperature (r=- 0.22; P<0.001). Neither dry eye severity level nor dry eye symptoms differ between seasons in Oslo, Norway. However, some parameters for assessing DED show seasonal variations (Schirmer I and tear meniscus height), which are essential to consider when examining patients with DED.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available