4.4 Article

The agreement between self-assessment and clinician assessment of dry eye severity

期刊

CORNEA
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 804-810

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ico.0000154410.99691.3c

关键词

dry eye; grading; symptoms; diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this analysis was to measure the degree of agreement between clinicians' assessment and subjects' self-assessment of dry eye severity in a cross-sectional, observational dry eye study. A secondary purpose was to identify the role of gender and age in that concordance. Methods: In a cross-sectional observational study, 162 dry eye subjects and 48 controls were recruited from clinical databases of ICD-9 codes in 6 clinical sites. Before examination, subjects gave a global self-assessment of the severity of their dry eye from none to extremely severe. After a clinical examination that included dry eye tests, the clinician discussed the subjects' symptoms and then gave global clinician assessment of dry eye from none to severe. We measured the degree of agreement in these global measures. Results: Although the correlation and agreement between clinician and self-assessment was significant (r = 0.720, P = 0.000; weighted K = 0.471; 95% CI = 0.395, 0.548; P = 0.000), the clinician assessment underestimated the severity in 40.9% of the subjects by at least 1 grade compared with the subjects' self-assessment. Over 54% of subjects over age 65 and 43% of the female subjects had their condition underestimated by the clinician (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Clinicians often relatively underestimated the severity of the subjects' self-assessment of dry eye in this clinical study, especially among the elderly and women. Eye care practitioners need better, more quantitative tools for the assessment of ocular surface symptoms to improve the concordance in severity assessment and to meet the needs of this symptomatic patient population by offering them appropriate treatments.

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

4.4
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