A comparison of the self‐reported dry eye practices of New Zealand optometrists and ophthalmologists

Xue, Ally L.; Downie, Laura E; Ormonde, Susan E; Craig, Jennifer P.

doi:10.1111/opo.12349

Cited by 24 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the source(s) of information used by the practitioners to inform their blue light‐blocking spectacle lens prescribing practices, half of respondents nominated using information from conference presentations. Similar results have been reported in the context of guiding clinical decision making in other areas of optometric practice, including dry eye disease and age‐related macular degeneration . These findings emphasise the need for continuing education to be founded on rigorous evidence, to ensure the appropriate translation of research findings into clinical practice.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Insights into Australian optometrists’ knowledge and attitude towards prescribing blue light‐blocking ophthalmic devices

Singh

Anderson

Downie

2019

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this cross‐sectional study was to survey Australian optometrists regarding their attitudes towards, and knowledge of, blue light‐blocking lenses designed to attenuate blue light transmission to the eye. Methods A 29‐item survey was distributed at a major national optometry education conference and through professional networks. Respondents provided information regarding their demographics and practice modalities, knowledge about the potential effects of blue light, and attitudes towards prescribing blue light‐blocking ophthalmic devices. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the factors that predicted optometrists’ prescribing of blue light‐blocking lenses. Results Of 372 respondents, 75.3% indicated prescribing blue light‐blocking spectacle lenses in their clinical practice. Forty‐four per cent of optometrists considered daily environmental exposure to blue light as a potential cause of retinal damage, and approximately half of respondents thought blue light emitted from computer screens was an important factor in causing computer vision syndrome. About half of optometrists considered placebo effects to potentially play a role, at least sometimes, in patients’ experiences with blue light‐blocking lenses. Most optometrists estimated that they first prescribed a blue light‐blocking lens in 2016. The most common reason optometrists prescribed these devices was for patients who were computer or electronic device users (87.9%). The two main sources of information used to guide practitioners’ management approaches were conference presentations and manufacturer product information. Practitioners were significantly more likely to prescribe blue light‐blocking lenses if they considered blue light to cause either retinal damage (odds ratio, OR 2.28, 95%CI 1.34–3.88, p = 0.002) or computer vision syndrome (OR 2.52, 95%CI 1.41–4.50, p = 0.002) compared with practitioners who did not consider such factors to be relevant. Conclusion Prescribing trends by Australian optometrists in relation to blue light‐blocking lenses reflect the inconclusive nature of several aspects of the evidence in this field. Blue light‐blocking lens prescribing has increased since 2010, despite practitioners acknowledging the lack of high‐quality evidence to support their use and also commonly believing that placebo effects may have a role in patient responses to these lenses. Information from this study will help inform the development of resources to guide evidence‐based prescribing of blue light‐blocking lens products.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Insights into Australian optometrists’ knowledge and attitude towards prescribing blue light‐blocking ophthalmic devices

Singh

Anderson

Downie

2019

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DED is a multifactorial disease with complex pathophysiological process, which hinders patients' quality of life through various symptoms. Numerous treatment options are currently available for DED, but the widely diverse management options can be confusing even for eye professionals, 21,22 and some of the treatments involve many side effects which can worsen the conditions. 23 This is why it is crucial to assess the level of DED with appropriate criteria and treat the conditions in ways with minimal side effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Low-level Light Therapy at 740 nm on Dry Eye Disease In Vivo

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectivesLow-level light therapy (LLLT) is an application of low-power light for various purposes such as promoting tissue repair, reducing inflammation, causing analgesia, etc. A previous study suggested the effect of light emitting diode (LED) light with the wavelength of 740 nm for promoting wound healing of corneal epithelial cells. This current study aimed to confirm the effect of LLLT for managing inflammation of a dry eye disease (DED) mouse model. Materials and MethodsA total of 50C57BL/6 female mice were randomly grouped into 5 groups to compare the effect of LLLT:1) Control group, 2) Only LLLT group, 3) Dry eye group, 4) LLLT in dry eye group, and 5) Early treatment group. DED was induced with 4 daily injections of scopolamine hydrobromide and desiccation stress for 17 days, and LLLT at 740 nm was conducted once every 3 days. To analyze the effect of LLLT on the DED mouse model, tear volume, corneal surface irregularities, and fluorescence in stained cores were measured, and the level of inflammation was assessed with immunohistochemistry. ResultsThe DED mouse model showed significant deterioration in the overall eye condition. After LLLT, the amount of tear volume was increased, and corneal surface irregularities were restored. Also, the number of neutrophils and the level of inflammatory cytokines significantly decreased as well. ConclusionThis study showed that LLLT at 740 nm was effective in controlling the corneal conditions and the degree of inflammation in DED. Such findings may suggest therapeutic effects of LLLT at 740 nm on DED.

show abstract

“…For instance, in New Zealand, 92% of ophthalmologists referred to use the fluorescein tear break-up time (FBUT) as tear stability assessment technique versus 4% that used NIBUT and 4% that used other techniques. [18] Differences between FBUT and NIBUT are controversial. While some authors have reported that the NIBUT is lower than the FBUT, [19][20][21] other authors have reported higher NIBUT than FBUT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The OSDI punctuation can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing greater disability. A patient can be classified as normal (0-12), mild dry eye(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22), moderate dry eye(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32), and severe dry eye (33-100) depending on the obtained score [15].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement and repeatability of objective systems for assessment of the tear film

Fernández

Rodríguez‐Vallejo²,

Martínez³

et al. 2018

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A comparison of the self‐reported dry eye practices of New Zealand optometrists and ophthalmologists

Cited by 24 publications

References 40 publications

Insights into Australian optometrists’ knowledge and attitude towards prescribing blue light‐blocking ophthalmic devices

Insights into Australian optometrists’ knowledge and attitude towards prescribing blue light‐blocking ophthalmic devices

Effects of Low-level Light Therapy at 740 nm on Dry Eye Disease In Vivo

Agreement and repeatability of objective systems for assessment of the tear film

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About