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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

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 dry eye disease in visual display terminal workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Prevalence of dry eye disease in visual display terminal workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BMJ Open

University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand (CHU), Preventive and Occupational Medicine, Clermont-Ferrand, France University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand (CHU), Clinical Research Direction, Clermont-Ferrand, France Australian Catholic University, Faculty of Health, School of Exercise Science, Melbourne, Australia University Clermont Auvergne, Laboratory of Metabolic Adaptations to Exercise in Physiological and Pathological conditions EA3533, Clermont-Ferrand, France Research Centre in Human Nutrition (CRNH) Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France CNRS UMR 6024, Psychological & Psychosocial Stress Team, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Published: January 2016

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease (DED) in workers using visual display terminals (VDT).

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Science Direct databases for studies reporting DED prevalence in VDT workers.

Results: 16 of the 9049 identified studies were included, with a total of 11,365 VDT workers. Despite a global DED prevalence of 49.5% (95% CI 47.5 to 50.6), ranging from 9.5% to 87.5%, important heterogeneity (I(2)=98.8%, p<0.0001) was observed. Variable diagnosis criteria used within studies were: questionnaires on symptoms, tear film anomalies and corneoconjunctival epithelial damage. Some studies combined criteria to define DED. Heterogeneous prevalence was associated with stratifications on symptoms (I(2)=98.7%, p<0.0001), tears (I(2)=98.5%, p<0.0001) and epithelial damage (I(2)=96.0%, p<0.0001). Stratification of studies with two criteria adjusted the prevalence to 54.0% (95% CI 52.1 to 55.9), whereas studies using three criteria resulted in a prevalence of 11.6% (95% CI 10.5 to 12.9). According to the literature, prevalence of DED was more frequent in females than in males and increased with age.

Conclusions: Owing to the disparity of the diagnosis criteria studied to define DED, the global prevalence of 49.5% lacked reliability because of the important heterogeneity. We highlight the necessity of implementing common DED diagnostic criteria to allow a more reliable estimation in order to develop the appropriate preventive occupational actions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4735196PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009675DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dry eye
8
eye disease
8
visual display
8
systematic review
8
ded prevalence
8
prevalence
4
prevalence dry
4
disease visual
4
display terminal
4
terminal workers
4

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!