Fig 1.
The Berkeley Dry Eye Flow Chart (DEFC).
Table 1.
Baseline subject characteristics.
Fig 2.
Difference-vs.-mean plot of DEFC scores.
The mean difference in DEFC scores (Visit 2 –Visit 1) was 0.05 units (1.00%) on the 5-point DEFC scale. There was no pattern of dependence of the inter-visit difference on the size of the mean. The discrete ordinal DEFC scores are jittered to reveal coincident data.
Table 2.
Repeatability of the CLIDE diagnostic instruments.
Table 3.
DEFC score vs. other CLIDE assessments.
Table 4.
Sensitivity and specificity of CLIDE assessments for two DEFC-based diagnoses.
Fig 3.
For the first DEFC-based CLIDE diagnosis, the OSDI showed a low sensitivity but a relatively high specificity. For the second DEFC-based diagnosis, the sensitivity of the OSDI improved with a small concomitant reduction in specificity.
Fig 4.
A trend of higher VAS ratings with higher DEFC score.
EOD ratings tended to be slightly higher than on-average ratings. The subjective VAS ratings had higher sensitivities and specificities than did any of the clinical measurements, and were similar to those of the OSDI. DE = Contact Lens-Induced Dry Eye (DEFC score ≥ 2); NDE = Non-DE (DEFC score = 1).
Fig 5.
Potential pitfalls in using assessments that are significantly associated with CLIDE outcomes as diagnostic instruments.
There is clear separation between CLIDE-negative (filled circles) and CLIDE-positive (open triangles) subjects; however, there are subjects with VAS ratings above the diagnostic thresholds (No/Mild Symptoms vs. Debilitating Symptoms thresholds shown) who do not have CLIDE (false-positives), as well as those with VAS ratings below the thresholds who do have CLIDE (false-negatives).