» Articles » PMID: 17317388

Impact of Dry Eye Syndrome on Vision-related Quality of Life

Overview
Journal Am J Ophthalmol
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2007 Feb 24
PMID 17317388
Citations 313
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of dry eye syndrome (DES) on vision-associated quality of life.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Methods: We identified 450 participants in the Women's Health Study (WHS) and 240 participants in the Physicians' Health Study (PHS) and sent a supplementary questionnaire asking how much their everyday activities were limited by symptoms of dry eye and to what degree problems with their eyes limited them in reading, driving, working at the computer, their professional activity, and watching television. By design, one-third of study subjects had clinically diagnosed DES or severe symptoms and two-thirds did not. We used logistic regression to examine relationships of DES with reported problems with everyday activities in each cohort and pooled estimates using meta-analysis methods.

Results: Of the participants invited, 85% completed the supplementary questionnaire, including 135 WHS and 55 PHS participants with DES, and 250 WHS and 149 PHS participants without DES. Controlling for age, diabetes, hypertension, and other factors, those with DES were more likely to report problems with reading ([odds ratio] OR = 3.64, 95% [confidence interval] CI 2.45 to 5.40, P < .0001); carrying out professional work (OR = 3.49, 95% CI 1.72 to 7.09, P= 0.001); using a computer (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 to 5.38, P < .0001); watching television (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.74, P = .04); driving during the day (OR = 2.80, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.96, P < .0001); and driving at night (OR = 2.20, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.28, P < .0001).

Conclusions: DES is associated with a measurable adverse impact on several common and important tasks of daily living, further implicating this condition as an important public health problem deserving increased attention and resources.

Citing Articles

Psychometric validation of the Chronic Ocular Pain Questionnaire (COP-Q).

Findley A, Sloesen B, Hodson N, Leventi A, Pascoe B, Arbuckle R J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2025; 9(1):32.

PMID: 40072779 PMC: 11903982. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00862-9.


Epidemiological Characteristics of Dry Eye Disease in Asian and Asian Female Populations: A Database-Driven Descriptive Study.

Zhang H, Yang K, Yang W, Wan S, Yang Y, Xing Y J Curr Ophthalmol. 2025; 36(2):159-167.

PMID: 40012804 PMC: 11856113. DOI: 10.4103/joco.joco_46_24.


Prevalence of dry eye disease among children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zou Y, Li D, Gianni V, Congdon N, Piyasena P, Prakalapakorn S BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2025; 10(1).

PMID: 39971589 PMC: 11840909. DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2024-002014.


From Symptoms to Satisfaction: Optimizing Patient-Centered Care in Dry Eye Disease.

Villani E, Barabino S, Giannaccare G, Di Zazzo A, Aragona P, Rolando M J Clin Med. 2025; 14(1.

PMID: 39797278 PMC: 11721487. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14010196.


Leveraging large language models to improve patient education on dry eye disease.

Dihan Q, Brown A, Chauhan M, Alzein A, Abdelnaem S, Kelso S Eye (Lond). 2024; .

PMID: 39681711 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-024-03476-5.


References
1.
Dalzell M . Dry eye: prevalence, utilization, and economic implications. Manag Care. 2004; 12(12 Suppl):9-13. View

2.
Schaumberg D, Sullivan D, Buring J, Dana M . Prevalence of dry eye syndrome among US women. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 136(2):318-26. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(03)00218-6. View

3.
Reddy P, Grad O, Rajagopalan K . The economic burden of dry eye: a conceptual framework and preliminary assessment. Cornea. 2004; 23(8):751-61. DOI: 10.1097/01.ico.0000134183.47687.75. View

4.
DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. View

5.
. Final report on the aspirin component of the ongoing Physicians' Health Study. N Engl J Med. 1989; 321(3):129-35. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198907203210301. View