4.5 Article

Epidemiology of symptoms of dry eye disease (DED) in Jordan: A cross-sectional non-clinical population-based study

Journal

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages 197-202

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2016.01.003

Keywords

Dry eye disease; Symptoms; Risk factors; OSDI questionnaire

Categories

Funding

  1. Deanship of Research at Jordan University of Science and Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe the prevalence of dry eye disease (DED) symptoms and to identify associated risk factors in a general non-clinical population in Jordan. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants were selected randomly from the general non-clinical population in Jordan. Participants aged 18 years or over completed the Arabic version of Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire on dry eye symptoms. Results: The OSDI questionnaire was completed by 1039 subjects (609 female and 430 male). The mean OSDI score for the study population was 27, with 59% of subjects showed OSDI score >= 20 (a cut off score for mild DED symptoms). Females showed significantly higher mean OSDI score than males in the older age group (p = 0.01). The prevalence of all dryness symptoms was markedly reported in older age group >45 years and contact lens wearers (p < 0.05). The most commonly reported DED symptom was sensitivity to light and intense symptoms were markedly reported during windy conditions. Vision-related quality of life was also affected in subjects with dryness symptoms. Working with computers and ATM was among those that highly affected. Conclusion: The results show that symptoms of dry eye were prevalent in this non-clinical population. Contact lenses wear and older age were found to be associated with dry eye symptoms. (C) 2016 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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