PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
Journal
2019 | 6 | 2 | 86-92
Article title

Zespół suchego oka – rekomendowany protokół diagnostyczny

Content
Title variants
EN
The recommended diagnostic protocol for dry eye disease
Languages of publication
PL
Abstracts
EN
The prevalence of ocular surface abnormalities, including dry eye disease, has been reported to increase over the last decade [1]. Dry eye incidence increases with age, however is notable among young adults. The disease affects half of the global population with one-fifth of the patients being undiagnosed. The lack of standardized diagnostic criteria results in a wide range of reported prevalence rates (ranging from 5–75%). Dry Eye Workshop II report summarizes a decade of important clinical studies and provides a new definition of the disease [2] and systematic clinical diagnostic protocol [3]. This protocol, provided below, enables the practitioner to perform full objective dry eye diagnosis.
PL
W ciągu ostatniej dekady notuje się wzrost częstości występowania zaburzeń powierzchni oka, w tym zespołu suchego oka [1, 2]. Wiek jest istotnym czynnikiem ryzyka, jednakże coraz częściej objawy dotyczą młodych dorosłych [3]. Przyjmuje się, że problem dotyka nawet połowy populacji globalnej i co piąty pacjent opuszczający gabinet okulistyczny nie jest diagnozowany. Różnorodność raportowanych danych populacyjnych (5–75% występowania zespołu suchego oka w populacji) sugeruje potrzebę krytycznego spojrzenia na kryteria diagnostyczne, które nie doczekały się standaryzacji. Raport Dry Eye Workshop II powstał w celu zredefiniowania choroby [4] i usystematyzowania diagnostyki [5] na podstawie inicjatyw badawczych podejmowanych na przestrzeni ostatniej dekady. W niniejszej publikacji opisano rekomendowany protokół badań klinicznych pozwalający na postawienie jednoznacznej diagnozy
Discipline
Publisher

Journal
Year
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
86-92
Physical description
Contributors
References
  • 1. Stapleton F, Alves M, Bunya VY, et al. TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report. Ocul Surf 2017; 15(3): 334-365.
  • 2. Dana R, Bradley JL, Guerin A, et al. Estimated Prevalence and Incidence of Dry Eye Disease Based on Coding Analysis of a Large, Allage United States Health Care System. Am J Ophthalmol 2019; 202: 47-54.
  • 3. Farrand KF, Fridman M, Stillman IÖ, et al. Prevalence of diagnosed dry eye disease in the United States among adults aged 18 years and older. Am J Ophthalmol 2017; 182: 90-98. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.06.033.
  • 4. Craig JP, Nichols KK, Akpek EK, et al. TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report. Ocul Surf 2017; 15(3): 276-283.
  • 5. Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R, et al. TFOS DEWS II diagnostic methodology report. Ocul Surf 2017; 15(3): 539-574.
  • 6. Craig JP, Nelson JD, Azar DT et al. TFOS DEWS II report executive summary. Ocul Surf 2017; 15(4): 802-812.
  • 7. Matossian C, McDonald M, Donaldson KE, et al. Dry Eye Disease: Consideration for Women’s Health. J Women’s Health 2019; 28(4): 502-514.
  • 8. Vehof J, Smitt-Kamminga NS, Nibourg SA, et al. Sex differences in clinical characteristics of dry eye disease. Ocul Surf 2018; 16(2): 242-248.
  • 9. Ward MF, Le P, Donaldson JC, et al. Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Association Between Diabetes Mellitus and Dry Eye Disease. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2019. Apr 26: 1-6. DOI: 10.1080/09286586.2019.1607882. [Epub ahead of print].
  • 10. Mo Z, Fu Q, Lyu D, et al. Impacts of air pollution on dry eye disease among residents in Hangzhou, China: A case-crossover study. Environ Pollut 2019; 246: 183-189.
  • 11. Alex A, Edwards A, Daniel Hays J, et al. Factors predicting the ocular surface response to desiccating environmental stress. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54(5): 3325-3332.
  • 12. Schaumberg DA, Sullivan DA, Buring JE, et al. Prevalence of dry eye syndrome among US women. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 136(2): 318-326.
  • 13. Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BEK. Prevalence of and risk factors for dry eye syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118(9): 1264-1268.
  • 14. Nichols KK, Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL. The lack of association between signs and symptoms in patients with dry eye disease. Cornea 2004; 23(8): 762-770.
  • 15. Pult H, Purslow C, Murphy PJ. The relationship between clinical signs and dry eye symptoms. Eye 2011; 25(4): 502.
  • 16. Sullivan B. Challenges in using signs and symptoms to evaluate new biomarkers of dry eye disease. Ocul Surf 2014; 12(1): 2-9.
  • 17. Schiffman RM, Christianson MD, Jacobsen G, et al. Reliability and validity of the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118(5): 615-621.
  • 18. Chalmers RL, Begley CG, Caffery B. Validation of the 5-Item Dry Eye Questionnaire (DEQ-5): Discrimination across self-assessed severity and aqueous tear deficient dry eye diagnoses. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 2010; 33(2): 55-60.
  • 19. Li M, Gong L, Chapin WJ, et al. Assessment of vision-related quality of life in dry eye patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53(9): 5722-5727.
  • 20. Begley CG, Chalmers RL, Abetz L, et al. The Relationship between Habitual Patient-Reported Symptoms and Clinical Signs among Patients with Dry Eye of Varying Severity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44(11): 4753-4761.
  • 21. Vitali C, Moutsopoulos HM, Bombardieri S. The European Community Study Group on diagnostic criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome. Sensitivity and specificity of tests for ocular and oral involvement in Sjögren’s syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis 1994; 53(10): 637.
  • 22. Hong J, Sun X, Wei A, et al. Assessment of tear film stability in dry eye with a newly developed keratograph. Cornea 2013; 32(5): 716- 721.
  • 23. Mengher LS, Bron AJ, Tonge SR, et al. A non-invasive instrument for clinical assessment of the pre-corneal tear film stability. Curr Eye Res 1985; 4: 1-7.
  • 24. Tomlinson A, Khanal S. Assessment of tear film dynamics: quantification approach. Ocul Surf 2005; 3(2): 81-95.
  • 25. Lemp MA, Bron AJ, Baudouin C, et al. Tear osmolarity in the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 151(5): 792-798. e1.
  • 26. Nemeth J, Fodor E, Lang Z, et al. Lid-parallel conjunctival folds (LIPCOF) and dry eye: a multicentre study. Br J Ophthalmol 2012; 96(11): 1380-1385.
  • 27. Knop E, Knop N, Millar T, et al. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the subcommittee on anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology of the meibomian gland. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52(4): 1938-1978.
  • 28. Ban Y, Shimazaki-Den S, Tsubota K, et al. Morphological evaluation of meibomian glands using noncontact infrared meibography. Ocul Surf 2013; 11(1): 47-53.
  • 29. Segev F, Geffen N, Galor A, et al. Dynamic assessment of the tear film muco-aqueous and lipid layers using a novel tear film imager (TFI). Br J Ophthalmol. 2019 Apr 18. pii: bjophthalmol-2018-313379. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313379. [Epub ahead of print].
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-7d50a806-71c7-4cf5-b692-ec4b5bc70ec8
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.