Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 543

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Objective Approach to Dry Eye Disease Severity

Sullivan, Benjamin D., Whitmer, Diane, Nichols, Kelly K., Tomlinson, Alan, Foulks, Gary N., Geerling, Gerd, Pepose, Jay S., Kosheleff, Valerie, Porreco, Allison, Lemp, Michael A.·2010·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: A prospective, multisite clinical study (10 sites in the European Union and the United States) evaluated the clinical utility of commonly used tests and tear osmolarity for assessing dry eye disease severity. METHODS: Three hundred fourteen consecutive subjects between the ages of 18 and 82 years were recruited from the general patient population, 299 of which qualified with complete datasets. Osmolarity testing, Schirmer test without anesthesia, tear film breakup time (TBUT), corneal staining, meibomian dysfunction assessment, and conjunctival staining were performed bilaterally. A symptom questionnaire, the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), was also administered to each patient. Distributions of clinical signs and symptoms against a continuous composite severity index were evaluated. RESULTS: Osmolarity was found to have the highest correlation coefficient to disease severity (r(2) = 0.55), followed by conjunctival staining (r(2) = 0.47), corneal staining (r(2) = 0.43), OSDI (r(2) = 0.41), meibomian score (r(2) = 0.37), TBUT (r(2) = 0.30), and Schirmer result (r(2) = 0.17). A comparison of standard threshold-based classification with the composite severity index revealed significant overlap between the disease severities of prospectively defined normal and dry eye groups. Fully 63% of the subjects were found to be poorly classified by combinations of clinical thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Tear film osmolarity was found to be the single best marker of disease severity across normal, mild/moderate, and severe categories. Other tests were found to be informative in the more severe forms of disease; thus, clinical judgment remains an important element in the clinical assessment of dry eye severity. The results also indicate that the initiation and progression of dry eye is multifactorial and supports the rationale for redefining severity on the basis of a continuum of clinical signs. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00848198.).

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 · 10.1167/iovs.10-5390

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 543

Metadata

Authors
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.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2010-12-01
Volume
51
Issue
12
Pages
6125
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W2045978101
Cited by
543
References
23
FWCI
38.76
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: An Objective Approach to Dry Eye Disease Severity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.10-5390
The paper
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). An Objective Approach to Dry Eye Disease Severity. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-5390

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.