4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Ophthalmologist Perceptions Regarding Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Dry Eye: Results of a Physician Survey

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181c739ad

关键词

Dry eye disease; Survey study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: TO understand ophthalmologists' current perceptions and treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe dry eye disease (DED). Setting: Online survey. Methods: The online survey was sent to 7,882 ophthalmologists, including 51 corneal specialists, throughout the United States from October 9 to 21, 2008. The response rate was 3.1% (n = 245), typical for this type of survey. Only ophthalmologists who treated four or more moderate-to-severe DED patients per month (235 of 245 [96%]) were asked to complete the survey. Results: Ninety-four percent of respondents agreed that more treatment options are needed for moderate-to-severe DED. Corneal specialists were more likely to strongly agree (63%) than general ophthalmologists (54%). Only 33% overall felt that current therapies were extremely or very effective for moderate DED and only 5% for severe disease. Ninety-two percent agreed that multiple therapeutic agents are needed to manage moderate-to-severe DED. The respondents prescribed or recommended a mean of 3.2 different treatments (standard deviation = 1.2) for moderate DED patients over the course of a year and 4.9 (standard deviation = 2.2) for patients with severe DED. The most highly ranked goals for treatment of moderate-to-severe DED patients were maintaining and protecting the ocular surface (ranked I or 2 X 74%) and lubricating and hydrating the ocular surface (ranked I or 2 X 67%). Corneal specialists ranked maintaining and protecting the ocular surface even more highly (ranked I or 2 X 82%). Conclusions: Results reflected the difficulty of treating moderate-to-severe DED, the importance of using multiple treatment approaches, the limitations of current treatment options, and the need for additional treatment options.

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

4.3
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