Optimal cutoff value of the dry eye-related quality-of-life score for diagnosing dry eye disease.

Journal

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Feb 2024
Historique:
received: 28 10 2023
accepted: 22 02 2024
medline: 27 2 2024
pubmed: 27 2 2024
entrez: 27 2 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This retrospective study aimed to determine the optimal cutoff values of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score (DEQS) questionnaire for diagnosing dry eye disease (DED) and classifying DED severities. Participants completed the DEQS questionnaire, the Japanese version of the Ocular Surface Disease Index (J-OSDI) questionnaire, and DED examinations. DED was diagnosed according to the 2016 Asia Dry Eye Society diagnostic criteria based on DED symptoms (J-OSDI ≥ 13 points) and tear film breakup time ≤ 5 s. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to calculate the optimal cutoff values of the DEQS summary score for detecting DED and grading its severity. Among 427 patients, 296 (69.3%) and 131 (30.7%) were diagnosed with DED and non-DED, respectively. ROC analysis determined an optimal cutoff value of 15.0 points for DED diagnosis, with 83.5% sensitivity, 87.0% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.915. The positive and negative predictive values for DEQS ≥ 15.0 points were 93.6% and 69.9%, respectively. DEQS cutoff values of 15.0, 20.0, and 26.8 points could be accepted for severity classification of DED subjective symptoms in clinical use and represent mild, moderate, and severe DED, respectively. Conclusively, the optimal cutoff values of DEQS enable DED detection and subjective symptom severity classification.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-55358-1 PMID: 38409465
pubmed: 38409465
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-55358-1
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-55358-1
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

4623

Subventions

Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 21K17311
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 22K16983
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 20KK0207

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s).

Références

Craig, J. P. et al. TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report. Ocul. Surf. 15, 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.008 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.008 pubmed: 28736335
Wolffsohn, J. S. et al. TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of the digital environment on the ocular surface. Ocul. Surf. 28, 213–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.004 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.004 pubmed: 37062428
Stapleton, F. et al. TFOS DEWS II epidemiology report. Ocul. Surf. 15, 334–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.003 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.003 pubmed: 28736337
Inomata, T. et al. Smartphone-based digital phenotyping for dry eye toward P4 medicine: A crowdsourced cross-sectional study. NPJ Digit. Med. 4, 171. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00540-2 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41746-021-00540-2 pubmed: 34931013 pmcid: 8688467
Tsubota, K. et al. New perspectives on dry eye definition and diagnosis: A consensus report by the Asia Dry Eye Society. Ocul. Surf. 15, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2016.09.003 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2016.09.003 pubmed: 27725302
Wolffsohn, J. S. et al. TFOS DEWS II diagnostic methodology report. Ocul. Surf. 15, 539–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001 pubmed: 28736342
Okumura, Y. et al. A review of dry eye questionnaires: Measuring patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life. Diagnostics (Basel) 10, 559. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10080559 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10080559 pubmed: 32764273
Abetz, L. et al. Development and validation of the impact of dry eye on everyday life (IDEEL) questionnaire, a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measure for the assessment of the burden of dry eye on patients. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 9, 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-111 (2011).
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-111 pubmed: 22152125 pmcid: 3269387
Tananuvat, N., Tansanguan, S., Wongpakaran, N. & Wongpakaran, T. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Thai version of the dry eye-related quality-of-life score questionnaire. PLoS One 17, e0271228. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271228 (2022).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271228 pubmed: 35852996 pmcid: 9295941
Sakane, Y. et al. Development and validation of the dry eye-related quality-of-life score questionnaire. JAMA Ophthalmol. 131, 1331–1338. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.4503 (2013).
doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.4503 pubmed: 23949096
Ishikawa, S., Takeuchi, M. & Kato, N. The combination of strip meniscometry and dry eye-related quality-of-life score is useful for dry eye screening during health checkup: Cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore) 97, e12969. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000012969 (2018).
doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000012969 pubmed: 30412120
Shigeyasu, C. et al. Quality of life measures and health utility values among dry eye subgroups. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 16, 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0999-3 (2018).
doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-0999-3 pubmed: 30170606 pmcid: 6119313
Inomata, T. et al. Comparing the Japanese version of the ocular surface disease index and dry eye-related quality-of-life score for dry eye symptom assessment. Diagnostics (Basel) 10, 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10040203 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10040203 pubmed: 32272589
Habibzadeh, F., Habibzadeh, P. & Yadollahie, M. On determining the most appropriate test cut-off value: The case of tests with continuous results. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb) 26, 297–307. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2016.034 (2016).
doi: 10.11613/bm.2016.034 pubmed: 27812299
Olde Hartman, T. C. et al. What do guidelines and systematic reviews tell us about the management of medically unexplained symptoms in primary care?. BJGP Open https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen17X101061 (2017).
doi: 10.3399/bjgpopen17X101061 pubmed: 30564678 pmcid: 6169926
Inomata, T. et al. Maximum blink interval is associated with tear film breakup time: A new simple, screening test for dry eye disease. Sci. Rep. 8, 13443. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31814-7 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-31814-7 pubmed: 30194447 pmcid: 6128834
Hirosawa, K. et al. Diagnostic ability of maximum blink interval together with Japanese version of ocular surface disease index score for dry eye disease. Sci. Rep. 10, 18106. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75193-4 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75193-4 pubmed: 33093551 pmcid: 7582156
Yazdani-Ibn-Taz, M. K. et al. Patient-reported severity of dry eye and quality of life in diabetes. Clin. Ophthalmol. 13, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.S184173 (2019).
doi: 10.2147/opth.S184173 pubmed: 30774302 pmcid: 6354694
Schiffman, R. M., Christianson, M. D., Jacobsen, G., Hirsch, J. D. & Reis, B. L. Reliability and validity of the ocular surface disease index. Arch. Ophthalmol. 118, 615–621. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.118.5.615 (2000).
doi: 10.1001/archopht.118.5.615 pubmed: 10815152
Tong, L., Chaurasia, S. S., Mehta, J. S. & Beuerman, R. W. Screening for meibomian gland disease: Its relation to dry eye subtypes and symptoms in a tertiary referral clinic in Singapore. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 51, 3449–3454. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.09-4445 (2010).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-4445 pubmed: 20181848
Uchino, M. et al. Prevalence of dry eye disease and its risk factors in visual display terminal users: The Osaka study. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 156, 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.05.040 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.05.040 pubmed: 23891330
Yokoi, N. et al. Importance of tear film instability in dry eye disease in office workers using visual display terminals: The Osaka study. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 159, 748–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2014.12.019 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.12.019 pubmed: 25555800
Qian, L. & Wei, W. Identified risk factors for dry eye syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 17, e0271267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271267 (2022).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271267 pubmed: 35984830 pmcid: 9390932
Midorikawa-Inomata, A. et al. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the ocular surface disease index for dry eye disease. BMJ Open 9, e033940. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033940 (2019).
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033940 pubmed: 31772113 pmcid: 6886996
Okumura, Y. et al. DryEyeRhythm: A reliable and valid smartphone application for the diagnosis assistance of dry eye. Ocul. Surf. 25, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2022.04.005 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2022.04.005 pubmed: 35483601
van Bijsterveld, O. P. Diagnostic tests in the Sicca syndrome. Arch. Ophthalmol. 82, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1969.00990020012003 (1969).
doi: 10.1001/archopht.1969.00990020012003 pubmed: 4183019
van Bijsterveld, O. P. & van Hemel, O. L. Sucralfate and sodium sucrose sulphate in the treatment of superficial corneal disease in keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Acta Ophthalmol. (Copenh) 70, 518–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.1992.tb02123.x (1992).
doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1992.tb02123.x pubmed: 1414298
Rasmussen, A. et al. Comparison of the American–European Consensus Group Sjogren’s syndrome classification criteria to newly proposed American College of Rheumatology criteria in a large, carefully characterised sicca cohort. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 73, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203845 (2014).
doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203845 pubmed: 23968620
Doughty, M. J. Rose bengal staining as an assessment of ocular surface damage and recovery in dry eye disease—A review. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 36, 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2013.07.008 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2013.07.008 pubmed: 23928365
Chen, F., Xue, Y., Tan, M. T. & Chen, P. Efficient statistical tests to compare Youden index: Accounting for contingency correlation. Stat. Med. 34, 1560–1576. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6432 (2015).
doi: 10.1002/sim.6432 pubmed: 25640747

Auteurs

Xinrong Zou (X)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Ophthalmology, Fengcheng Hospital, Fengxian District, Shanghai, China.

Ken Nagino (K)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Hospital Administration, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Digital Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Yuichi Okumura (Y)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Digital Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Akie Midorikawa-Inomata (A)

Department of Hospital Administration, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Atsuko Eguchi (A)

Department of Hospital Administration, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Alan Yee (A)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.

Keiichi Fujimoto (K)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Digital Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Maria Miura (M)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Digital Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Jaemyoung Sung (J)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Digital Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Tianxiang Huang (T)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Digital Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Kenta Fujio (K)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Digital Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Yasutsugu Akasaki (Y)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Department of Digital Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Shintaro Nakao (S)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.

Hiroyuki Kobayashi (H)

Department of Hospital Administration, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Takenori Inomata (T)

Department of Ophthalmology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan. tinoma@juntendo.ac.jp.
Department of Hospital Administration, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. tinoma@juntendo.ac.jp.
Department of Digital Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. tinoma@juntendo.ac.jp.
AI Incubation Farm, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. tinoma@juntendo.ac.jp.

Classifications MeSH