MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevalence and Incidence of Dry Eye and Meibomian Gland Dysfunction in the United States

2022· review· en· W4307428022 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul McCann, Alison G. Abraham, Adhuna Mukhopadhyay, Kanella Panagiotopoulou, Hongan Chen, Thanitsara Rittiphairoj, Darren G. Gregory, Scott G Hauswirth, Cristos Ifantides, Riaz Qureshı, Su‐Hsun Liu, Ian J. Saldanha, Tianjing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Ophthalmology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Meta-analysisMeibomian glandMEDLINEOphthalmologyDemographyInternal medicineEyelid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Dry eye is a common clinical manifestation, a leading cause of eye clinic visits, and a significant societal and personal economic burden in the United States. Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a major cause of evaporative dry eye. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain updated estimates of the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. Study Selection: A search conducted on August 16, 2021, identified studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 16, 2021, with no restrictions regarding participant age or language of publication. Case reports, case series, case-control studies, and interventional studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The conduct of review followed a protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021256934). PRISMA guidelines were followed for reporting. Joanna Briggs Institute and Newcastle Ottawa Scale tools were used to assess risk of bias. Data extraction was conducted by 1 reviewer and verified by another for accuracy. Prevalence of dry eye and MGD were combined in separate meta-analyses using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Summary estimates from meta-analysis of dry eye and MGD prevalence with 95% CI and 95% prediction intervals (95% PI). Results: Thirteen studies were included in the systematic review. Dry eye prevalence was reported by 10 studies, dry eye incidence by 2 studies, and MGD prevalence by 3 studies. Meta-analysis estimated a dry eye prevalence of 8.1% (95% CI, 4.9%-13.1%; 95% PI, 0%-98.9%; 3 studies; 9 808 758 participants) and MGD prevalence of 21.2% (95% CI, 7.2%-48.3%; 95% PI, 0%-100%; 3 studies; 19 648 participants). Dry eye incidence was 3.5% in a population 18 years and older and 7.8% in a population aged 68 years and older. No studies reported MGD incidence. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated uncertainty about the prevalence and incidence of dry eye and MGD in the United States. Population-based epidemiological studies that use consistent and validated definitions of dry eye and MGD are needed for higher-certainty estimates of dry eye and MGD prevalence and incidence in the United States.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations156
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OphthalmologySame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207