June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the UNC Dry Eye Management Scale
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Christopher Hwang
    Health Care & Prevention MD-MPH Program, UNC Gilling School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC
    Ophthalmology, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC
  • Jane Reeves Ellis
    Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, NC
    Health Care & Prevention MD-MPH Program, UNC Gilling School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC
  • Sue Tolleson-Rinehart
    Health Care & Prevention MD-MPH Program, UNC Gilling School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC
  • Richard Davis
    Ophthalmology, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Christopher Hwang, None; Jane Ellis, None; Sue Tolleson-Rinehart, None; Richard Davis, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 4492. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Christopher Hwang, Jane Reeves Ellis, Sue Tolleson-Rinehart, Richard Davis; Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the UNC Dry Eye Management Scale. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):4492. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: Many patient-reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires have been developed to assess dry eye disease (DED), but few have established a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in accordance with FDA guidelines. Therefore, to further develop the novel UNC Dry Eye Management Scale (DEMS), I established an initial estimation of the MCID of the instrument as well as assessed patient perceptions of symptom change versus score change via questionnaires in an observational clinical study.

Methods: I recruited 33 patients who had a prior DEMS score from a UNC ophthalmology cornea clinic in Chapel Hill, NC for study in the months of May and June 2014. I compared patients’ change in the DEMS scores from the most recent prior visit to patient-reported assessments of change in symptoms at the time of this study. Using anchor-based methods to determine the MCID, I obtained linear regression coefficients from the comparison to be my estimation of the MCID. I also recorded clinical assessments of the patients’ disease severity (tear break-up time, Schirmer test, Oxford grading scheme), and I administered another questionnaire to assess patient perceptions of score change as it relates to symptom change.

Results: All 33 patients in this first attempt to establish MCID were included in analysis (33.3% male, 67.7% female, mean age 60.5 years). Anchors were correlated with DEMS score changes. The MCID ranged from ½ point using linear regression analysis (β = -0.54, CI = -0.97 to -0.12, R2 = 0.18, p = 0.014) to ~1 point (SD 1.32) using descriptive statistics. Patients felt that a change of approximately 2 points (SD = 0.95) was needed to represent an improvement/worsening of symptoms. The UNC DEMS had modest Spearman's Rank correlations with clinical tests (Schirmer test: -0.4045, p = 0.0266; Oxford grading scheme: +0.3713, p = 0.0364; Tear break-up time: -0.3559, p = 0.0456).

Conclusions: The UNC DEMS is a valid, responsive PRO instrument that can be used easily in the clinic to aid in the management of dry eye disease over time.

×
×

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.

×