PURPOSE: In this article, we introduce a novel flow chart-based screening tool for the categorization of contact lens-induced dryness (CLIDE) and its impact on daily visual activities: the Berkeley Dry Eye Flow Chart (DEFC). METHODS: One hundred thirty (130) experienced soft contact lens wearers discontinued lens wear for 24 hrs, passed a baseline screening and eye health examination, completed the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) then were dispensed fresh pairs of their habitual lenses. After 6 hrs of wear, subjects were administered a battery of symptom questionnaires, and underwent non-invasive tear breakup time (NITBUT) measurement, grading of distortion in reflected topographer mires, grading of lens surface wettability, and a fluorescein examination of the ocular surface. Subjects returned after at least 48 hrs and repeated all assessments after 6 hrs of wear of a second fresh pair of habitual lenses. RESULTS: The repeatability of the DEFC between visits was within 1%, and Limits of Agreement and Coefficient of Repeatability were comparable to those of the other CLIDE assessments. Higher DEFC score was significantly related to shorter pre-lens NITBUT, higher OSDI score, and higher Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ratings of average and end-of-day severity and frequency of dryness (all p < 0.001). For CLIDE as diagnosed based on DEFC score, the highest sensitivities and specificities were achieved by the OSDI and VAS ratings; pre-lens NITBUT exhibited good sensitivity but poor specificity. The optimum pre-lens NITBUT diagnostic threshold was found to be ≤ 2.0 sec for debilitating CLIDE, and the OSDI threshold was ≥ 11.4. CONCLUSIONS: The DEFC provides a means of quickly categorizing CLIDE patients based on severity and frequency of symptoms, and on the degree to which symptoms impact daily life. The DEFC has several potential advantages as a CLIDE screening and monitoring tool, has good repeatability, and is significantly related to commonly employed clinical assessments for CLIDE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graham et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: