The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Distribution of Aqueous-Deficient and Evaporative Dry Eye in a Clinic-Based Patient Cohort: A Retrospective Study
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate in a general clinic-based cohort of patients with dry eye disease (DED) the distribution of patients with aqueous-deficient or evaporative subtype of DED. METHODS: Schirmer tests and meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) (Foulks-Bron scoring) were evaluated in both eyes of 299 normal subjects and DED patients (218 women and 81 men) across 10 sites in the European Union and the United States. Using the more severe measurement of the 2 eyes, subjects were considered to have pure aqueous-deficient dry eye (ADDE) with Schirmer values of <7 mm and MGD grades of ≤5. Patients were classified as purely evaporative dry eye with MGD grades of >5 and Schirmer values of ≥7 mm. Subjects were placed into the mixed (hybrid) category if they exhibited both a low Schirmer value of <7 and evidence of MGD with a grade >5. RESULTS: Of the 224 subjects classified with DED using an objective, composite, disease severity scale, 159 were classified into 1 of 3 categories: 79 were classified with only MGD, whereas only 23 were classified as purely aqueous deficient, and 57 showed evidence of both MGD and aqueous deficiency. Overall, 86% of these qualified DED patients demonstrated signs of MGD. The remaining 65 patients showed evidence of DED through other clinical signs, without overt evidence of MGD or ADDE, possibly because of the inherent variability of these signs. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of subjects exhibiting signs of evaporative dry eye resulting from MGD far outweighs that of subjects with pure ADDE in a general clinic-based patient cohort.
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 Definition and Classification Report
Craig, J. P., Nichols, K. K., Akpek, E. K., Caffery, B., Dua, H. S., Joo, C.-K., Liu, Z., Nelson, J. D., Nichols, J. J., Tsubota, K., et al. (2017) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.008 · Cited by 3,383
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
Self-citationReduction in Bacterial Load Using Hypochlorous Acid Hygiene Solution on Ocular Skin
Stroman, D., Mintun, K., Epstein, A., Brimer, C., Patel, C., Branch, J., & Najafi-Tagol, K. (2017) · Clinical Ophthalmology · doi:10.2147/opth.s132851 · Cited by 82
Metadata
- Authors
- Lemp, M. A., Crews, L. A., Bron, A. J., Foulks, G. N., & Sullivan, B. D.
- Venue
- Cornea
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 472-478
- ISSN
- 0277-3740 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2313816167
- Cited by
- 570
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.07
- 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: Distribution of Aqueous-Deficient and Evaporative Dry Eye in a Clinic-Based Patient Cohort: A Retrospective Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ico.0b013e318225415a
- The paper
- Lemp, M. A., Crews, L. A., Bron, A. J., Foulks, G. N., & Sullivan, B. D. (2012). Distribution of Aqueous-Deficient and Evaporative Dry Eye in a Clinic-Based Patient Cohort: A Retrospective Study. Cornea. https://doi.org/10.1097/ico.0b013e318225415a
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.