Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcCarty, Cathy A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBansal, Aashish K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLivingston, Patricia M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorStanislavsky, Yury L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Hugh R.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-22T09:05:23Z
dc.date.available2014-05-22T09:05:23Z
dc.date.issued1998-06en_US
dc.date.submitted2006-11-22en_US
dc.identifier.citationMcCarty, C. A., Bansal, A. K., Livingston, P. M., Stanislavsky, Y. L. & Taylor, H. R. (1998). The epidemiology of dry eye in Melbourne, Australia. Ophthalmology, 105(6), 1114-1119.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/33445
dc.descriptionPublisher's version is restricted access in accordance with the publisher's policy.en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To describe the epidemiology of dry eye in the adult population of Melbourne, Australia.Design: A cross-sectional prevalence study.Participants: Participants were recruited by a household census from two of nine clusters of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project, a population-based study of age-related eye disease in the 40 and older age group of Melbourne, Australia. Nine hundred and twenty-six (82.3% of eligible) people participated; 433 (46.8%) were male. They ranged in age from 40 to 97 years, with a mean of 59.2 years.Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported symptoms of dry eye were elicited by an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Four objective assessments of dry eye were made: Schirmer's test, tear film breakup time, rose bengal staining, and fluorescein corneal staining. A standardized clinical slit-Iamp examination was performed on all participants. Dry eye for the individual signs or symptoms was defined as: rose Bengal > 3, Schirmers < 8, tear film breakup time < 8, > 1/3 fluorescein staining, and severe symptoms (3 on a scale of 0 to 3).Results: Dry eye was diagnosed as follows: 10.8% by rose Bengal, 16.3% by Schirmer's test, 8.6% by tear film breakup time, 1.5% by fluorescein staining, 7.4% with two or more signs, and 5.5% with any severe symptom not attributed to hay fever. Women were more likely to report severe symptoms of dry eye (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85; 95% confidence limits [CL] = 1.01, 3.41). Risk factors for two or more signs of dry eye include age (OR = 1.04; 95% CL = 1.01, 1.06), and self-report of arthritis (OR = 3.27; 95% CL = 1.74, 6.17). These results were not changed after excluding the 21 people (2.27%) who wore contact lenses.Conclusions: These are the first reported population-based data of dry eye in Australia. The prevalence of dry eye varies by sign and symptom.en_US
dc.formatapplication/pdfen_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://tinyurl.com/yc2wuqwen_US
dc.subjectCERAen_US
dc.subjectophthalmologyen_US
dc.subjectCentre for Eye Research Australiaen_US
dc.subjecteye researchen_US
dc.subjectvisionen_US
dc.subjectvisual healthen_US
dc.titleThe epidemiology of dry eye in Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.typeJournal (Paginated)en_US
melbourne.peerreviewPeer Revieweden_US
melbourne.affiliation.departmentMedicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences: Centre for Eye Research Australiaen_US
melbourne.affiliation.departmentSchool of Medicine: Ophthalmologyen_US
melbourne.publication.statusPublisheden_US
melbourne.source.titleOphthalmologyen_US
melbourne.source.month06en_US
melbourne.source.volume105en_US
melbourne.source.issue6en_US
melbourne.source.pages1114-1119en_US
melbourne.elementsidNA
melbourne.contributor.authorMcCarty, Catherine
melbourne.contributor.authorTaylor, Hugh
melbourne.accessrightsThis item is currently not available from this repository


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record