The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the Ocular Surface Disease Index
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI; Allergan Inc, Irvine, California, holds the copyright), a 12-item patient-reported outcome questionnaire designed to quantify ocular disability due to dry eye disease. METHODS: Study data were collected within the Restasis Review of Efficacy and Safety vs Tears in the Relief of Dry Eye (RESTORE), an observational registry. A clinician global impression (CGI) and a subject global assessment (SGA) served as anchors to estimate the MCID for the overall OSDI score (range, 0-100). The overall OSDI score defined the ocular surface as normal (0-12 points) or as having mild (13-22 points), moderate (23-32 points), or severe (33-100 points) disease. RESTORE patients were included if they completed the OSDI at the baseline visit and at a follow-up visit and had a global change rating (SGA or CGI). RESULTS: Three hundred ten patients were included (82.3% white and 81.6% female [mean age, 57.8 years]). The CGI and SGA correlated with the OSDI score change for all OSDI categories except the normal category. The MCID ranged from 7.0 to 9.9 for all OSDI categories. The MCID ranged from 4.5 to 7.3 for mild or moderate disease and from 7.3 to 13.4 for severe disease. CONCLUSIONS: Using observational data, we estimated the MCIDs for different baseline OSDI categories of dry eye disease. These results will assist clinicians and researchers when interpreting OSDI score changes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report
Wolffsohn, J. S., Arita, R., Chalmers, R., Djalilian, A., Dogru, M., Dumbleton, K., Gupta, P. K., Karpecki, P., Lazreg, S., Pult, H., et al. (2017) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001 · Cited by 2,122
An Objective Approach to Dry Eye Disease Severity
Sullivan, B. D., Whitmer, D., Nichols, K. K., Tomlinson, A., Foulks, G. N., Geerling, G., Pepose, J. S., Kosheleff, V., Porreco, A., & Lemp, M. A. (2010) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.10-5390 · Cited by 543
n−3 Fatty Acid Supplementation for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease
The Dry Eye Assessment and Management Study Research Group (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1709691 · Cited by 274
Associations between signs and symptoms of dry eye disease: a systematic review
Bartlett, J., Keith, M., Sudharshan, L., & Snedecor, S. (2015) · Clinical Ophthalmology · doi:10.2147/opth.s89700 · Cited by 268
Cook, J., Hislop, J., Adewuyi, T., Harrild, K., Altman, D., Ramsay, C., Fraser, C., Buckley, B., Fayers, P., Harvey, I., et al. (2014) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta18280 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, K. L.
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2010-01-01
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984864129
- Cited by
- 598
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the Ocular Surface Disease Index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.356
- The paper
- Miller, K. L. (2010). Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the Ocular Surface Disease Index. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.356
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.