Wolffsohn James S, Travé-Huarte Sònia, Craig Jennifer P, Muntz Alex, Stapleton Fiona J
School of Optometry, College of Health & Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK.
Department of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.
J Clin Med. 2024 May 27;13(11):3146. doi: 10.3390/jcm13113146.
If questionnaires contributing to the diagnosis of dry eye disease are to be recommended as alternatives to existing questionnaires, they must be comparable, with similar repeatability and treatment sensitivity. Comparability was thus examined for three common dry eye questionnaires along with identifying the individual questions that most strongly predicted overall scores. Anonymised data ( = 329) collected via the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), 5-item Dry Eye Questionnaire (DEQ-5) and Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) questionnaires (including responses to individual questions) from consenting patients were drawn from real-world dry eye clinics/registries in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand; at follow-up, normalised changes were evaluated in 54 of these patients. Treatment data were also analysed from a 6-month, randomised controlled trial assessing artificial tear supplement treatments with 43 responders and 13 non-responders to treatment identified. The questions extracted from the OSDI which form the abbreviated 6-item OSDI were also analysed. The agreement between the questionnaires ranged from r = 0.577 to 0.754 (all < 0.001). For the OSDI, three questions accounted for 89.1% of the variability in the total score. The correlation between the OSDI and OSDI-6 was r = 0.939, < 0.001. For the DEQ-5, two questions accounted for 88.5% of the variance in the total score. Normalised treatment changes were also only moderately correlated between the questionnaires (r = 0.441 to 0.595, < 0.01). For non-responders, variability was 7.4% with both OSDI and OSDI-6, 9.7% with DEQ-5, 12.1% with SANDE-frequency and 11.9% with SANDE-severity scale. For responders, improvement with drops was detected with a 19.1% change in OSDI, 20.2% in OSDI-6, 20.9% in DEQ-5, and 27.5%/23.6% in SANDE-frequency/severity scales. Existing commonly used dry eye questionnaire scores do not show high levels of correlation. The OSDI was the least variable of the questionnaires and while displaying a slightly lower treatment effect than either the DEQ or SANDE, it was more sensitive to detection of a treatment effect. The quicker-to-complete OSDI-6 exhibited essentially the same outcome as the OSDI, with similar variability and treatment sensitivity.
如果用于诊断干眼病的问卷要被推荐作为现有问卷的替代方案,那么它们必须具有可比性,具备相似的重复性和治疗敏感性。因此,对三种常见的干眼病问卷进行了可比性检验,并确定了对总分预测力最强的各个问题。通过眼表疾病指数(OSDI)、5项干眼问卷(DEQ - 5)和干眼症状评估(SANDE)问卷(包括对各个问题的回答)从英国、澳大利亚和新西兰的真实世界干眼诊所/登记处收集了329例同意参与患者的匿名数据;在随访时,对其中54例患者的标准化变化进行了评估。还分析了一项为期6个月的随机对照试验的治疗数据,该试验评估了人工泪液补充治疗,确定了43例治疗反应者和13例无反应者。还对从OSDI中提取的构成简化6项OSDI的问题进行了分析。问卷之间的一致性范围为r = 0.577至0.754(均P < 0.001)。对于OSDI,三个问题占总分变异性的89.1%。OSDI与OSDI - 6之间的相关性为r = 0.939,P < 0.001。对于DEQ - 5,两个问题占总分方差的88.5%。问卷之间的标准化治疗变化相关性也仅为中等程度(r = 0.441至0.595,P < 0.01)。对于无反应者,OSDI和OSDI - 6的变异性为7.4%,DEQ - 5为9.7%,SANDE - 频率为12.1%,SANDE - 严重程度量表为11.9%。对于反应者,使用滴眼液后的改善情况为:OSDI变化19.1%,OSDI - 6变化20.2%,DEQ - 5变化20.9%,SANDE - 频率/严重程度量表变化27.5%/23.6%。现有的常用干眼问卷得分并未显示出高度相关性。OSDI是问卷中变异性最小的,虽然其显示出的治疗效果略低于DEQ或SANDE,但它对治疗效果的检测更敏感。完成速度更快的OSDI - 6表现出与OSDI基本相同的结果,具有相似的变异性和治疗敏感性。