4.3 Article

Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease in North India: Ocular surface disease index-based cross-sectional hospital study

Journal

INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 2, Pages 207-211

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_698_17

Keywords

Dry eye disease; North India; visual display terminal

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study aims to study the prevalence of DED and analyze risk factors in North Indian population. Methods: This was a cross-section hospital-based, observational study. Cases enrolled over 2 years (systematic random sampling) were administered ocular surface disease index questionnaire to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of DED. Schirmer's test and tear break-up time were performed only in the subset of patients giving consent. Categorical data were assessed with Chi-square/Fisher's Exact test, and odds ratio was analyzed using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression. P < 0.05 was statistically significant. Results: A total of 15,625 patients were screened. The prevalence of DED was 32% (5000/15625); 9.9% (496/5000) had mild DED; 61.2% (3060/5000) had moderate DED; and 28.9% (1444/5000) had severe DED. Age group of 21-40 years, male sex, urban region, and desk job were associated with increased risk of DED. Hours of visual display terminal (VDT) usage significantly correlated with DED (P < 0.001), and 89.98% of patients with 4 h or more of VDT use had severe dry eye. Cigarette smoking and contact lens usage had increased odds of developing severe DED (P < 0.001). Objective tests were undertaken in 552 patients; of these, 81.3% (449/552) had severe DED. Conclusions: The prevalence of DED in North India is 32%, with the age group of 21-40 years affected most commonly. VDT use, smoking, and contact lens use were associated with increased odds of developing 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

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available