Appropriateness of Questionnaires for the Diagnosis and Monitoring Treatment of Dry Eye Disease

James S. Wolffsohn,Sònia Travé-Huarte,Jennifer P. Craig,Alex Muntz,Fiona J. Stapleton
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113146
IF: 3.9
2024-05-28
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Abstract:Objectives: If questionnaires contributing to the diagnosis of dry eye disease are to be recommended as alternatives to existing questionnaires, they must be comparable, with similar repeatability and treatment sensitivity. Comparability was thus examined for three common dry eye questionnaires along with identifying the individual questions that most strongly predicted overall scores. Methods: Anonymised data (n = 329) collected via the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), 5-item Dry Eye Questionnaire (DEQ-5) and Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) questionnaires (including responses to individual questions) from consenting patients were drawn from real-world dry eye clinics/registries in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand; at follow-up, normalised changes were evaluated in 54 of these patients. Treatment data were also analysed from a 6-month, randomised controlled trial assessing artificial tear supplement treatments with 43 responders and 13 non-responders to treatment identified. The questions extracted from the OSDI which form the abbreviated 6-item OSDI were also analysed. Results: The agreement between the questionnaires ranged from r = 0.577 to 0.754 (all p < 0.001). For the OSDI, three questions accounted for 89.1% of the variability in the total score. The correlation between the OSDI and OSDI-6 was r = 0.939, p < 0.001. For the DEQ-5, two questions accounted for 88.5% of the variance in the total score. Normalised treatment changes were also only moderately correlated between the questionnaires (r = 0.441 to 0.595, p < 0.01). For non-responders, variability was 7.4% with both OSDI and OSDI-6, 9.7% with DEQ-5, 12.1% with SANDE-frequency and 11.9% with SANDE-severity scale. For responders, improvement with drops was detected with a 19.1% change in OSDI, 20.2% in OSDI-6, 20.9% in DEQ-5, and 27.5%/23.6% in SANDE-frequency/severity scales. Conclusions: Existing commonly used dry eye questionnaire scores do not show high levels of correlation. The OSDI was the least variable of the questionnaires and while displaying a slightly lower treatment effect than either the DEQ or SANDE, it was more sensitive to detection of a treatment effect. The quicker-to-complete OSDI-6 exhibited essentially the same outcome as the OSDI, with similar variability and treatment sensitivity.
medicine, general & internal
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper primarily explores the correlation and sensitivity of three questionnaires used for diagnosing and monitoring the treatment effects of dry eye disease—Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), 5-item Dry Eye Questionnaire (DEQ-5), and Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE)—in practical applications. ### Research Objectives - Compare the correlation among the three commonly used dry eye questionnaires (OSDI, DEQ-5, and SANDE), evaluating their consistency, repeatability, and sensitivity to treatment effects. - Determine which individual questions within each questionnaire best predict the overall score. ### Key Findings - There is a moderate correlation among the three questionnaires (Spearman's r ranging from 0.577 to 0.754), indicating they are not completely consistent. - For OSDI, three questions (low humidity environment, eye discomfort while watching TV, and blurred vision) can explain 89.1% of the variation in the overall score. - For DEQ-5, two questions (severity of discomfort and frequency of dryness) can explain 88.5% of the variation in the overall score. - After normalization, changes in treatment effects among the questionnaires also showed only moderate correlation. - Among non-responders, OSDI had the lowest variability, while SANDE had the highest variability. - Among responders, OSDI was more sensitive to changes in treatment effects. - The simplified OSDI-6 (containing 6 questions) had a high correlation with the full version of OSDI (r = 0.939) and exhibited similar variability and treatment sensitivity. ### Conclusion - Although these commonly used dry eye questionnaires can all detect treatment effects, they are not interchangeable. Therefore, it is necessary to recommend the use of a single questionnaire to establish a more robust diagnostic standard. - OSDI has the least variability among these questionnaires. Although it detects slightly lower treatment effects compared to DEQ-5 or SANDE, it is more sensitive to detecting treatment effects. - The simplified OSDI-6, while maintaining similar results to the full version of OSDI, requires less time to complete and has comparable variability and treatment sensitivity. Therefore, it is worth considering as a new tool for diagnosing dry eye disease.