A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Prevalence of lid wiper epitheliopathy in subjects with dry eye signs and symptoms. | LitMetric

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of lid wiper epitheliopathy (LWE) in patients diagnosed with dry eye disease (DED).

Methods: Patients were recruited for two groups. Inclusion criteria for the DED group (n = 50) was: a score greater than 10 with the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness questionnaire, fluorescein break-up time 5 seconds or less, corneal and conjunctival staining with fluorescein, lissamine green Grade 1 or greater (scale 0-3), and Schirmer test with anesthesia 5 mm or less. For the asymptomatic group (n = 50), inclusion criteria were: no dry eye symptoms, fluorescein break-up time 10 seconds or greater, no corneal or conjunctival staining, and Schirmer test 10 mm or greater. Sequential instillations (n = 2, 5 minutes apart) of a mixture of 2% fluorescein and 1% lissamine green solution were used to stain the lid wipers of all patients. LWE was graded (scale 0-3) using the horizontal lid length and the average sagittal lid widths of the stained wiper.

Results: In symptomatic patients, 88% had LWE, of which 22% was Grade 1, 46% Grade 2, and 20% Grade 3. In asymptomatic patients, 16% had LWE, of which 14% was Grade 1, 2% was Grade 2, and 0% Grade 3. The difference in prevalence of lid wiper staining between groups was significant (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: The prevalence of LWE was six times greater for the DED group and the prevalence of LWE Grade 2 or greater was 16 times greater for the DED group than for the control group. These data further establish LWE as a diagnostic sign of dry eye disease.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181ba0cb2DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dry eye
16
prevalence lid
12
lid wiper
12
ded group
12
wiper epitheliopathy
8
eye disease
8
inclusion criteria
8
fluorescein break-up
8
break-up time
8
time seconds
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!