4.5 Article

Sex differences in clinical characteristics of dry eye disease

期刊

OCULAR SURFACE
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 242-248

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2018.01.001

关键词

Dry eye disease; Epidemiology; Gender; Neuropathic dry eye; Sex; Signs; Symptoms

资金

  1. Gratama Stichting of the University of Groningen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate the role of sex on the symptomatology of DED and on the associations between symptoms and signs. Methods: A cross-sectional study was used including 755 dry eye patients from the Groningen Longitudinal Sicca Study (GLOSSY cohort). Patient symptoms were assessed by the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire and dry eye signs by the six most commonly used tests. Patients were divided in groups based on overall severity of signs and within these groups total and specific symptoms were compared by sex. Sex differences in Spearman correlation between symptoms and signs were calculated. Results: Women had higher total symptom scores than men in both the mild (33.8 vs 24.7, P = .01) and moderate signs groups (38.3 vs 28.0, P <.005), but this difference was less apparent in the severe signs group (40.4 vs 37.2, P = .33). Independent of severity of signs, women consistently reported more light sensitivity than men (P <.01 in all groups). The correlation between symptoms and overall severity of signs score was significantly lower in women (r = 0.11 vs r = 0.33 in men, P = .01), with clearest differences between women and men in correlations with Schirmer (r = 0.01 vs r = -0.21, P = .03) and TFBUT (r = -0.08 vs r = -0.30, P = .02). Conclusions: This large clinical study has shown that sex has a large influence on the symptomatology of DED, with significantly higher symptom scores and lower correlation between symptoms and signs in women compared to men. These findings are of importance in clinical practice and in conducting research into DED. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据