MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399476286 · doi:10.1016/j.clae.2024.102248

Discordant dry eye disease and chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4399476286 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott F. Farrell, Luisa H. Colorado, Kimberley Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueContact Lens and Anterior Eye · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisChronic painMedicineDiseaseChronic diseasePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative contributions of objective and subjective indicators of dry eye disease (DED) in individuals with chronic pain conditions compared with controls. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of studies that reported the signs and symptoms of DED and/or their prevalence in individuals with chronic pain compared with controls. International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 codes for chronic pain conditions were applied, and outcomes defined as DED signs and symptoms. A search strategy utilised the EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Random effects meta-analysis calculated mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR), while subgroup analysis of different chronic pain conditions explored their relative association with the signs and symptoms of DED. Evidence certainty was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Fourteen observational studies comprising 3,281,882 individuals were included. Meta-analysis found high quality evidence that individuals with chronic pain were more likely to experience symptoms of DED than controls (OR = 3.51 [95 %CI: 3.45,3.57]). These symptoms were more severe (MD = 18.53 [95 %CI: 11.90, 25.15]) than controls with a clinically meaningful effect size. Individuals with chronic pain had more rapid tear film disruption (MD = -2.45 [95 %CI: -4.20, -0.70]) and reduced tear production (MD = -5.57 [95 %CI: -9.56, -1.57]) compared with controls (with moderate evidence quality). High quality evidence revealed individuals with chronic pain had lower basal tear production (anaesthetised) than controls (MD = -2.59 [95 %CI: -3.60, -1.58]). Tear film osmolarity showed no significant differences between the chronic pain and pain-free groups. Group differences for DED signs were not considered clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: More severe, clinically meaningful symptoms of DED were reported in individuals with chronic pain than controls, however group differences for the signs of DED were typically of limited or questionable clinical relevance. This ocular phenotype where DED is felt more than it is seen in chronic pain may reflect underlying sensory hypersensitivity, shared by both conditions and contributing to their frequent comorbidity. Advancing understanding of this potential pathophysiological mechanism may guide clinical management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContact Lens and Anterior EyeSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207