The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Relationship between Habitual Patient-Reported Symptoms and Clinical Signs among Patients with Dry Eye of Varying Severity
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate symptom profiles and clinical signs in subjects with dry eye and normal subjects in a cross-sectional multicenter study. METHODS: Subjects aged 35 to 65 were recruited according to dry eye diagnostic codes and telephone interview and completed the Dry Eye Questionnaire 2001, among others, and underwent dry eye clinical tests. RESULTS: Subjects (122) included 28 control subjects (C), 73 with non-Sjögren's keratoconjunctivitis sicca (non-SS KCS) and 21 with Sjögren's syndrome (SS). Subjects with SS or non-SS KCS reported discomfort and dryness most frequently and that many symptoms worsened over the day and were quite bothersome. Groups were significantly different in corneal fluorescein staining, conjunctival lissamine green staining, Schirmer 1 tear test, and tear break-up time (TBUT; chi2 and Kruskal-Wallis, P<0.0001). Statistically significant, but moderate, correlations were found between the frequency and evening intensity of dryness and discomfort and TBUT, Schirmer's tear test, overall corneal fluorescein staining, and temporal lissamine green conjunctival staining (Spearman r=0.31-0.45, P<0.01). Symptoms were moderately to highly correlated with the clinician's global grading of severity and highly correlated to patient's self-assessment of severity (r=0.46-0.86, P<0.0001), whereas signs showed lower correlations (r=0.22-0.46, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with SS or non-SS KCS reported frequent and intense ocular surface symptoms in the evening, some of which correlated moderately with clinical test results. The global clinician grade of dry eye correlated more highly with patient symptoms than did clinical signs, suggesting that patient symptoms influence dry eye diagnosis and grading of dry eye more than clinical test results.
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
(2007) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70081-2 · Cited by 3,267
TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report
Stapleton, F., Alves, M., Bunya, V. Y., Jalbert, I., Lekhanont, K., Malet, F., Na, K.-S., Schaumberg, D., Uchino, M., Vehof, J., et al. (2017) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.003 · Cited by 2,618
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-citationTFOS DEWS II Management and Therapy Report
Jones, L., Downie, L. E., Korb, D., Benitez-del-Castillo, J. M., Dana, R., Deng, S. X., Dong, P. N., Geerling, G., Hida, R. Y., Liu, Y., et al. (2017) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.006 · Cited by 1,422
(2007) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70082-4 · Cited by 1,227
Metadata
- Authors
- Begley, C. G., Chalmers, R. L., Abetz, L., Venkataraman, K., Mertzanis, P., Caffery, B. A., Snyder, C., Edrington, T., Nelson, D., & Simpson, T.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2003-11-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 4753
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2115345791
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.91
- 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: The Relationship between Habitual Patient-Reported Symptoms and Clinical Signs among Patients with Dry Eye of Varying Severity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.03-0270
- The paper
- Begley, C. G., Chalmers, R. L., Abetz, L., Venkataraman, K., Mertzanis, P., Caffery, B. A., Snyder, C., Edrington, T., Nelson, D., & Simpson, T. (2003). The Relationship between Habitual Patient-Reported Symptoms and Clinical Signs among Patients with Dry Eye of Varying Severity. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.03-0270
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.