Search

This study aims to investigate the reliability and efficacy of rear 4-min Schirmer test, as a supplement indicator, in assessing tear secretion and diagnosing dry eye. 180 participants were enrolled in this study. Schirmer test I without anaesthesia was performed once on both eyes to determine the value of normal Schirmer test. The values of tear secretion were recorded at each minute. Other examinations included the following: the ocular surface disease index (OSDI), the standard patient evaluation of eye dryness (SPEED), fluorescein stain, tear film break-up time (BUT), and Meibomian gland (MG) secretion grading. The participants were divided into dry eye (DE) group and non-dry eye (ND) group. The values of the 2-min Schirmer test, rear 3-min Schirmer test, rear 4-min Schirmer test, and 5-min Schirmer test were 5.36 ± 4.63, 5.57 ± 2.11, 7.21 ± 4.13, and 10.93 ± 6.30, respectively, in the DE group. These indicators were 8.25 ± 6.80, 2.73 ± 2.31, 7.36 ± 3.42, and 11.84 ± 6.16, respectively, in the ND group. The rear 4-min Schirmer test had a significant correlation with OSDI and SPEED in the DE group (r = − 0.242/ − 0.183) and in the ND group (r = − 0.316/ − 0.373). Meanwhile, the rear 4-min Schirmer test had a stronger connection with fBUT (r = 0.159) and MG secretion (r = − 0.162) in the DE group and also had higher accuracy in diagnosing severe DE and borderline DE. In conclusion, the rear 4-min Schirmer test may be a supplement indicator in assessing tear secretion and diagnosing DE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to investigate the efficacy of circularly polarized light smartphones in affecting dry eye symptoms and asthenopia through a comparison with linearly polarized smartphones. One hundred twenty participants were randomly divided into four groups. Dry eye and asthenopia symptoms were evaluated using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Computer Vision Syndrome Scale 17 (CVSS17), Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS), and visual analogue scale (VAS). Objective ocular examinations were assessed by confusion flicker frequency (CFF), tear meniscus height (TMH), noninvasive break‐up time (NIBUT), conjunctiva redness, fluorescein tear break‐up time (FTBUT), corneal fluorescein staining, and the Schirmer I test. Tests were performed before and after a reading task. Subjective evaluations including the OSDI, CVSS17, and CISS were all significantly increased after reading on a linearly polarized smartphone, whereas no change was observed in the circular polarization groups in both light and dark environments. A significantly enlarged VAS was shown in all of the four groups, but a significant increase in ΔVAS only appeared in the linear polarization groups. There were significant decreases in TMH, NIBUT, conjunctiva redness, FTBUT, and CFF after reading on a linearly polarized smartphone but the circularly polarized smartphone had lesser effects on these parameters. Our study indicated that reading on linearly polarized smartphones may cause dry eye disorder, asthenopia, and ocular discomforts, whereas circularly polarized smartphones appears to minimize these adverse effects on eye dryness and visual fatigue in light and dark environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of smartphone reading on the ocular surface and to compare the various effects of different screens and light conditions on the ocular surface. One hundred nineteen volunteers were randomly divided into: light + organic light‐emitting diode (OLED), light + electronic ink (eINK), dark + OLED, and dark + eINK. Ocular surface examinations, including noninvasive break‐up time (NIBUT), noninvasive keratograph tear meniscus height (NIKTMH), ocular redness, fluorescein break‐up time (FBUT), corneal fluorescein staining, meibomian gland assessment, Schirmer I Test, and blinking frequency, were performed before and after a reading task. Symptoms were evaluated using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS‐Q). NIBUT and FBUT were decreased statistically significantly after participants read on an OLED screen for 2 hours compared with the baseline in light and dark environments, whereas no statistically significant decrease was observed on an eINK screen. NIKTMH was statistically significantly decreased after reading on an OLED screen in light and dark settings, and the eINK screen had a lesser effect on NIKTMH. An obvious increase in the ocular redness, OSDI and CVS‐Q scores was observed after reading on an OLED screen, whereas the eINK screen had a lesser effect on these indicators. Blink rate increased gradually in OLED subgroups during the reading task, whereas no statistically significant difference was observed in the eINK subgroups. Our research suggested that reading on an OLED screen can cause ocular surface disorder and obvious subjective discomfort, whereas reading on an eINK screen can minimize ocular surface disorder in both dark and light environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]