DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Analysis of Questionnaires for Dry Eye Screening Test

안구건조증 설문지의 일치도 연구

  • 김다영 (강원대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 이선행 (한국존슨앤드존슨 비젼케어) ;
  • 조현국 (강원대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 김건규 (강원대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 김하나 (강원대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 문병연 (강원대학교 안경광학과)
  • Received : 2014.11.04
  • Accepted : 2014.12.09
  • Published : 2014.12.31

Abstract

Purpose: This study is to evaluate the accuracy of dry eye screening test by comparing coincidences between three types of questionnaires and objective tests. Methods: 90 adults were classified into the normal and dry eye groups using evaluations of three types of questionnaires (SPEED, OSDI, TERTC-DEQ) and objective tests (NIBUT, Schirmer test). Coincidences-between the results of objective tests and questionnaires were compared and analyzed for dry eye diagnosis. Results: Coincidences between NIBUT test and each questionnaire were 83.3% by SPEED, 77.8% by OSDI and 72.3% by TERTC-DEQ, respectively. Concordance by SPEED was highest among three types of questionnaire. Coincidences between the Schirmer test and each questionnaire were 57.8% by SPEED, 58.9% by OSDI and 73.3% by TERTC-DEQ, respectively, thus coincidence by TERTC was higher than by others. But coincidences by Schirmer test were generally lower than those by NIBUT test. Conclusions: SPEED questionnaire showed the highest concordance with objective test as compared with others. Therefore, SPEED is expected to be used usefully to diagnose dry eyes.

목적: 안구건조증 평가를 위한 세 종류의 설문지와 타각적 검사의 일치도를 비교하였다. 방법: 성인 90명을 대상으로 세 종류의 설문지(SPEED, OSDI, TERTC-DEQ)와 타각적 검사(NIBUT, Schirmer test)를 시행하여 건성안과 정상안을 구분하고 세 설문지와 타각적 검사의 일치도를 비교, 분석하였다. 결과: NIBUT 검사와 각 설문지 간의 일치도는 SPEED의 경우 83.3%, OSDI의 경우 77.8%, TERTC의 경우 72.3%로, SPEED가 가장 높은 일치도를 보였다. Schirmer test와 각 설문지 간의 일치도는 SPEED의 경우 57.8%, OSDI의 경우 58.9%, TERTC의 경우 73.3%로, TERTC가 일치도는 높았지만 전반적으로 Schirmer test에서는 NIBUT 검사보다 낮은 일치도를 나타냈다. 결론: 안구건조증은 SPEED의 설문지가 타각적 검사와 가장 높은 일치도를 보였으며, SPEED가 안구건조증 평가에 유용하게 사용할 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Zeev MSB, Miller DD, Latkany R. Diagnosis of dry eye disease and emerging technologies. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:581-590.
  2. Ngo W, Situ P, Keir N, Korb D, Blackie C, Simpson T. Psychometric properties and validation of the standard patient evaluation of eye dryness questionnaire. Cornea. 2013;32(9):1204-1210. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e318294b0c0
  3. Lemp MA, Foulks GN. The definition & classification of dry eye disease: report of the definition and classification subcommittee of the international dry eye workshop. Ocul Surf. 2007;5(2):75-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1542-0124(12)70081-2
  4. Cho JH, Ahn Y. Assessment of meibomian gland dysfunction and comparison of the results of BUT and Schirmer test according to meibomian gland state. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;41(9):1875-1882.
  5. Schiffman RM, Christianson MD, Jacobsen G, Hirsch JD, Reis BL. Reliability and validity of the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(5):615-621. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.118.5.615
  6. Narayanan S, Miller WL, Prager TC, Jackson JA, Leach NE, McDermott AM, et al. The diagnosis and characteristics of moderate dry eye in non-contact lens wearers. Eye contact lens. 2005;(31)3:96-104. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ICL.0000140907.45705.E2
  7. Nichols KK, Begley CG, Caffery B, Jones LA. Symptoms of ocular irritation in patients diagnosed with dry eye. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(12):838-844. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199912000-00019
  8. Yun CM, Kang SY, Kim HM, Song JS. Prevalence of dry eye disease among university students. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012;53(4):505-509. https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2012.53.4.505
  9. Miller KL, Walt JG, Mink DR, Satram-Hoang S, Wilson SE, Perry HD, et al. Minimal clinically important difference for the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(1):94-101. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.356
  10. Kim JM, Kim YH, Jung JH. Use of the Texas Eye Research and Technology Center Dry Eye Questionaire (TERTC-DEQ) as a screening survey for contact lens wearers and nonwearers. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2007;12(4):127-131.
  11. Sun JS, Ryu GC, Cho JH. Development of dry eye questionnaire easy to use in optical shops. J Korean Vis Sci. 2013;15(4):385-393.
  12. Lee BJ, Hong JH, Jung DI, Park MJ. A study on the confidence of dry eye diagnosis methods. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc. 2008;13(1):15-20.
  13. Lee JY, Seo JI, Jang WY. Optometric Instruments, 1st Ed. Seoul: Shinkwang, 2007;164.
  14. Seol BR, Kwon JW, Wee WR, Han YK. A case of meibomian gland dysfunction after cosmetic eyelid tattooing procedure. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013;54(8):1309-1313. https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.8.1309
  15. Jung DI, Lee HS, Kim SR, Park MJ. The difference of tear break-up time by the fitting states of soft contact lens in normal and dry eyes. J Korean Ophthalmic Opt Soc.2010;15(4):339-346.
  16. Korb DR, Herman JP Greiner JV, Scaffidi RC, Finnemore VM, Exford JM, et al. Lid wiper epitheliopathy and dry eye symptoms. Eye contact lens. 2005;31(1):2-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ICL.0000140910.03095.FA
  17. Grubbs JR Jr, Tolleson-Rinehart S, Huynh K, Davis RM. A review of quality of life measures in dry eye questionnaires. Cornea. 2014;33(2):215-218. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000038

Cited by

  1. Changes in Subjective/Objective Symptoms and Lens Parameters by the Education for Cosmetic Contact Lens Care vol.21, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2016.21.4.361
  2. The Effect of Fatigue and Stress on Dry eye vol.19, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.17337/jmbi.2017.19.3.323