Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Associations between signs and symptoms of dry eye disease: a systematic review

Open access
Bartlett, Jimmy, Keith, Michael, Sudharshan, Lavanya, Snedecor, Sonya·2015·Clinical Ophthalmology
DOI 10.2147/opth.s89700
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: The accurate diagnosis and classification of dry eye disease (DED) is challenging owing to wide variations in symptoms and lack of a single reliable clinical assessment. In addition, changes and severity of clinical signs often do not correspond to patient-reported symptoms. To better understand the inconsistencies observed between signs and symptoms, we conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate published studies reporting associations between patient-reported symptoms and clinical signs of DED. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched for English-language articles on the association between clinical signs and symptoms of DED up to February 2014 (no lower limit was set). RESULTS: Thirty-four articles were identified that assessed associations between signs and symptoms, among which 33 unique studies were reported. These included 175 individual sign-symptom association analyses. Statistical significance was reported for associations between sign and symptom measures in 21 of 33 (64%) studies, but for only 42 of 175 (24%) individual analyses. Of 175 individual analyses, 148 reported correlation coefficients, of which the majority (129/148; 87%) were between -0.4 and 0.4, indicating low-to-moderate correlation. Of all individual analyses that demonstrated a statistically significant association, one-half (56%) of reported correlation coefficients were in this range. No clear trends were observed in relation to the strength of associations relative to study size, statistical methods, or study region, although results from three studies did suggest that disease severity may be a factor. CONCLUSION: Associations between DED signs and symptoms are low and inconsistent, which may have implications for monitoring the response to treatment, both in the clinic and in clinical trials. Further studies to increase understanding of the etiopathogenesis of DED and to identify the most reliable and relevant measures of disease are needed to enhance clinical assessment of DED and the measurement of response to therapeutic interventions.

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 · 10.2147/opth.s89700

Cites

45 of 45 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

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Bartlett, J., Keith, M., Sudharshan, L., & Snedecor, S.
Venue
Clinical Ophthalmology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-09
Volume
9
Pages
1719
ISSN
  • 1177-5467 (ISSN-L)
  • 1177-5483
DOI
10.2147/opth.s89700
OpenAlex
W1413023120
Cited by
268
References
45
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

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.