Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Diagnosing the severity of dry eye: a clear and practical algorithm

Open access
Baudouin, Christophe, Aragona, Pasquale, Van Setten, Gysbert, Rolando, Maurizio, Irkeç, Murat, Benítez del Castillo, José, Geerling, Gerd, Labetoulle, Marc, Bonini, Stefano, ODISSEY European Consensus Group members·2014·British Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

Dry eye disease (DED) is a distressing ocular condition. Due to its multifactorial nature, clinical and biological signs of DED can be inconsistent and sometimes discordant with symptomatology. Consequently, no gold-standard model for determining DED severity exists. This can impact treatment decisions and complicate evaluation of disease progression, particularly within the stringent context of clinical trials. The multinational ODISSEY European Consensus Group is comprised of ophthalmologists who contend with ocular surface disease issues on a daily basis. This group convened to establish a clear and practical algorithm for evaluation and diagnosis of severe DED. Using a consensus-based approach, they assessed 14 commonly used DED severity criteria. The panel agreed that following confirmed DED diagnosis, just two criteria, symptom-based assessment and corneal fluorescein staining were sufficient to diagnose the presence of severe DED in the majority of patients. In the event of discordance between signs and symptoms, further evaluation using additional determinant criteria was recommended. This report presents the ODISSEY European Consensus Group recommended algorithm for DED evaluation, which facilitates diagnosis of severe disease even in the event of discordance between signs and symptoms. It is intended that this algorithm will be useful in a clinical and developmental setting.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304619

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Baudouin, C., Aragona, P., Van Setten, G., Rolando, M., Irkeç, M., Benítez del Castillo, J., Geerling, G., Labetoulle, M., Bonini, S., & ODISSEY European Consensus Group members
Venue
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-03-13
Volume
98
Issue
9
Pages
1168-1176
ISSN
  • 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2079
OpenAlex
W2032734824
Cited by
236
References
0
FWCI
18.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Diagnosing the severity of dry eye: a clear and practical algorithm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304619
The paper
Baudouin, C., Aragona, P., Van Setten, G., Rolando, M., Irkeç, M., Benítez del Castillo, J., Geerling, G., Labetoulle, M., Bonini, S., & ODISSEY European Consensus Group members. (2014). Diagnosing the severity of dry eye: a clear and practical algorithm. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304619

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.