June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Evaluation of the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Questionnaire
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nancy Keir
    School of Optometry-CCLR, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • William Ngo
    School of Optometry-CCLR, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Ping Situ
    School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
  • Donald Korb
    TearScience, Morrisville, NC
    Korb Associates, Boston, MA
  • Caroline Blackie
    TearScience, Morrisville, NC
    Korb Associates, Boston, MA
  • Trefford Simpson
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Nancy Keir, TearScience (F), Alcon (F), Alcon (R), Allergan (F), Johnson & Johnson (F), CooperVision (F), Visioneering, Inc. (F); William Ngo, None; Ping Situ, None; Donald Korb, TearScience (F); Caroline Blackie, TearScience (E); Trefford Simpson, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 6028. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Nancy Keir, William Ngo, Ping Situ, Donald Korb, Caroline Blackie, Trefford Simpson; Evaluation of the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Questionnaire. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):6028.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire by assessing its dimensionality, repeatability, validity, and by comparing it to four existing dry eye questionnaires.

Methods: A total of 50 subjects, 30 symptomatic and 20 asymptomatic, as determined using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) were enrolled. All subjects completed 5 different dry eye questionnaires (SPEED, OSDI, DEQ, McMonnies and SESoD) in a random order on two separate visits. Clinical measurements were obtained on the first visit. Concordance correlation coefficient was used to determine repeatability, Principal Component, Factor and Rasch analyses were used to determine dimensionality, and the comparison of SPEED scores to dry eye diagnosis defined by the OSDI (primarily using receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis) was used to determine validity.

Results: The SPEED questionnaire was found to be uni-dimensional using Rasch analysis. Three principal components (dryness, burning, soreness/fatigue) were identified and SPEED scores between visit CCC was 0.923 (upper and lower 95% CI 0.868 to 0.955). The area under the ROC was 0.928. The only clinical measures that correlated “well” with SPEED scores were corneal staining (p < 0.05), meibomian gland score (MGS) (p < 0.05) and meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion score (MGYLS) (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: These results indicate that the SPEED questionnaire is a valid and repeatable instrument for measurement of dry eye symptoms. The correlation of the SPEED score with clinical measures of meibomian gland function suggests potential additional clinical value for the diagnosis and/or management of meibomian gland dysfunction.

Keywords: 486 cornea: tears/tear film/dry eye • 468 clinical research methodology • 465 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×