Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Oct 27;20(10):e0335254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335254

Symptomatic dry eye disease (DED) in cohort of contact lens wearers in Jordan

Wissam Ghach 1,*, May M Bakkar 2,*, Mona Aridi 3, Mohammad A Alebrahim 2
Editor: Clara Martínez Pérez4
PMCID: PMC12558516  PMID: 41144529

Abstract

Understanding the symptomatic dry eye disease (DED) and its associated risk factors among contact lens wearers is crucial for clinicians to tailor effective interventions, enhance patient care, and prevent contact lens dropout. This study investigated symptomatic DED and its associated risk factors among a sample of contact lens wearers in Jordan. This cross-sectional study assessed symptomatic DED in a cohort of contact lens wearers in Jordan using an online survey distributed across various social media platforms. A total of 301 participants completed the survey, which included demographic and contact lens profile questions and the Arabic version of the Ocular Surface Disease Index (ARB-OSDI) questionnaire. Statistical analyses explored the associations between OSDI scores, demographics, symptoms, visual-related functions affected by dryness, and triggers of dryness. Among the study population, 77.1% were females, 48.2% were aged 18–24 years old, and 24.87% were soft contact lens wearers. The mean OSDI score was 22.9 ± 17, with 70% showing mild-to-severe dry symptoms and 25% showing severe symptomatic DED. The ANOVA revealed a significant association between symptomatic DED, wearing face masks, longer contact lens age, and poor cleaning habits. The use of lubricant eye drops significantly reduced symptomatic DED with a mean OSDI score of 8.79. The most prevalent dryness symptoms were pain and blurred vision, affecting reading and TV watching in 50% of the population. Wind and air conditioning were the most common environmental triggers, reported by 67.8% and 66.4% of participants, respectively. A high proportion of symptomatic DED was reported in this study population. Wearing face masks, a longer contact lens age, and poor contact lens hygiene were correlated with exaggerated DED symptoms. Conversely, the use of lubricated eye drops reduces the symptoms of DED.

1. Introduction

Dry eye disease (DED) is a common multifactorial disorder of the ocular surface that can significantly affect vision and comfort. The Tear Film and Ocular Surface Dry Eye Workshop II (TFOS DEWS II) defines DED as “multifactorial disease of the ocular surface characterized by a loss of homeostasis of the tear film and accompanied by ocular symptoms, in which tear film instability and hyperosmolarity, ocular surface inflammation and damage, and neurosensory abnormalities play etiological roles’‘ [1,2].

Contact lens wear has been listed as a modifiable risk factor for DED, with contact lens–related dryness often cited as a leading cause of discomfort, reduced wearing time, and discontinuation of lens use [3]. Estimates suggest that between 15% and 55% of contact lens wearers experience symptoms consistent with dry eye, a rate higher than that observed in non–contact lens wearers [49]. Suggested mechanisms of contact lens-related dry eye include increased tear film instability caused by contact lens friction with the ocular surface, accelerated pre-corneal tear film evaporation and subsequent tear film thinning, reduced contact lens wettability, ocular surface inflammation, and meibomian gland dysfunction [10].

Symptoms of contact lens-related DED include dryness, reduced vision quality, foreign body sensation, eye strain, blurred vision, ocular discomfort, and contact lens intolerance [10] can be assessed using available validated dry eye symptomology questionnaires. These include the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), MacMonnies’ Questionnaire, Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), or specific questionnaires developed for use with contact lens wearers such as the 8-items Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ-8) [11].

In Jordan, population-based studies have shown that the prevalence of DED symptoms is relatively high. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the reported percentage of individuals experiencing mild-to-severe DED symptoms was 59% [12], and this figure increased to 73.4% during the pandemic [13]. However, these investigations evaluated the general population without specifically examining contact lens wearers.

The current study aimed to investigate the proportion of contact lens wearers in Jordan reported symptomatic DED during the COVID-19 pandemic, using the validated Arabic version of the OSDI (ARB-OSDI) questionnaire. In addition, potential risk factors, including age, sex, frequency of mask use, contact lens type, duration of contact lens wear, and contact lens care practices) were examined to evaluate their statistical association with DED symptoms. The findings of this study aim to raise awareness of symptomatic DED in contact lens wearers and support the development of strategies to reduce discomfort and minimize contact lens discontinuation rates in the region.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study design and population

A cross-sectional study design is utilized to assess DED symptoms among a cohort of contact lens wearers in Jordan. The study population was recruited between 15/05/2022 and 30/11/2022 using convenience sampling. A total of 301 participants met the inclusion criteria and successfully completed the survey where only contact lens wearers aged ≥ 18 years participated in the study. Recruitment process included a random distribution of the Google form questionnaire survey distributed on several social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn) to reach a large sample of contact lens wearers among social media users in Jordan. Participants with a history of eye surgeries, active ocular diseases, or use of ocular or systemic medications (except for lubricant eye drops) known to interfere with tear film production, or ocular surface integrity were excluded from the study. Examples of such conditions and medications were provided in the questionnaire.

2.2. Study tool

The questionnaire used in the survey included two sections. The first covered participants’ profile characteristics, including gender, age, contact lens type, duration of contact lens wear (in hours), total duration of contact lens use since first fitting (in months), compliance with contact lens cleaning and lubricant eye drop use, and mask use during COVID-19 (mask use alone or in combination with contact lens wear, and duration of mask use per day). Mask use data were self-reported, with participants asked to report on their typical mask-wearing habits during the three months preceding the survey. The second section consisted of the validated Arabic version of the OSDI questionnaire to assess the severity of dryness symptoms induced by environmental factors over the preceding week [14]. The OSDI questionnaire was originally created by the Outcomes Research Group at Allergan Inc. (Irvin, California, USA) [15] to quantify the prevalence of DED. The 12-item OSDI questionnaire consisted of three sections: five questions about ocular symptoms, four questions about vision-related functions, and three questions about environmental triggers. Each item was scored on a scale of 0–4, where 0 indicated none of the time; 1, some of the time; 2, half of the time; 3, most of the time, and 4 indicated all of the time [15]. Then, each individual OSDI score was calculated using the following formula.

    OSDI Score= Sum of scores for all questions answered ×100Total number of questions answered ×4

Individual OSDI scores, each ranging from 0 to 100, were used to calculate the mean OSDI score, with higher values reflecting greater disability.

Dry eye symptoms were assessed using OSDI scores, with a cut-off of ≥13 distinguishing normal from symptomatic DED, which was further classified as mild, moderate, or severe.

The measurement scale of the OSDI status was divided into three intervals: the interval of [0–12] represents normal cases of non-dry eye, the interval of [13–32] represents mild-to-moderate dry eye, and the interval of [33–100] represents severe dry eye [13,16].

2.3. Data analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 21 (SPSS, International Business Machine Corp. IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for data analysis. Descriptive analyses based on frequency and percentage distributions were performed for all the variables. The percentage of the population with an OSDI score greater than 13 was used to determine the proportion of symptomatic DED (mild to moderate and severe OSDI status). One-way analysis ANOVA and cross-tabulation tests were used to assess significant differences across the studied variables. The Pearson’s correlation test was used to check for correlations across the studied variables. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Before performing One-way ANOVA, the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were tested. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess data normality. Subsequently, the Levene’s test was performed to evaluate the homogeneity of variances across groups. One-way ANOVA was performed to compare the OSDI scores across the different groups only if both assumptions were met.

Potential confounding factors were identified from prior literature on dry eye disease and contact lens–related discomfort. The following variables were considered potential confounders and were included as independent predictors in the multiple linear regression analysis to adjust for their effects: age, gender, history of contact lens–mask interaction (CL_Mask), years of contact lens use (CL_use_year), mask-wearing status (Do_you_use_mask), mask-wearing frequency (Mask_use_frequency), presence of pre-existing contact lens–related symptoms (CL_symptoms), type of contact lenses worn (CL_types), daily contact lens use (CL_use_daily), contact lens cleaning rate (CL_cleaning_rate), and use of eye drops (Eyedrop_use). This multivariable approach was employed to estimate the independent association between each predictor and OSDI scores while minimizing the influence of confounding.

To account for potential confounding factors and to identify independent predictors of symptomatic dry eye severity, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted with the continuous OSDI score as the dependent variable. Variables included in the regression model were selected based on theoretical relevance and prior univariate analysis. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 for all analyses.

2.4. Ethical considerations

The Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of Jordan University of Science and Technology and Modern University for Business and Science reviewed and approved the study protocol (MU-20210323-22E). This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written informed consent electronically prior to their participation in the study. Confidentiality was maintained during data collection and processing.

3. Results

3.1. Profile characteristics of contact lens wearers

A total of 301 respondents successfully participated in this study. The majority of the respondents (77.1%) were female, with a gender ratio (F: M = 3.36:1), and aged between 18 and 44 years old (96%). Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the characteristics of the contact lens wearers who participated in this study. Most of the participants (69.7%) had mild-to-severe symptomatic DED (OSDI score was ≥ 13), with a mean OSDI score of 22.9 ± 17.

Table 1. Frequency and percent frequency of Profile characteristics (gender, age, contact lens type, contact lens age, frequency of lubricant eye drops use, cleaning rate of contact lenses, use of mask during contact lens wear, frequency of mask use per day, and OSDI status) of the contact lens wearers (n = 301).

Variables Frequency (%)
Gender Male 69 (22.9%)
Females 232 (77.1%)
Age 18-24 years old 145 (48.2%)
25-44 years old 144 (47.8%)
≥ 45 years old 12 (4%)
Contact lens type Soft 262 (87%)
Rigid gas permeable (RGB) 39 (13%)
Contact lens wear duration per day (in hours) Less than 12 hours 265 (88%)
More than 12 hours 36 (12%)
Contact lens age (in months) Less than 6 months 68 (22.6%)
7–12 months 123 (40.8%)
More than 12 months 110 (36.6%)
Frequency of lubricant eye drops use Never 84 (28%)
Sometimes 107 (35.5%)
Always 110 (36.5%)
Cleaning rate of contact lenses Never 87 (29%)
Sometimes 98 (32.5%)
Daily 116 (38.5%)
Use of a mask during contact lens wear No 135 (44.9%)
Yes 166 (55.1%)
Frequency of mask use per day 0-3 hours 162 (53.8%)
4-6 hours 75 (24.9%)
More than 6 hours 64 (21.3%)
DED status based on OSDI scores Normal (OSDI score: 0–12) 90 (30.3%)
Mild-to-Moderate
(OSDI score: 13–32)
134 (44.3%)
Severe 77 (25.7%)

To evaluate the normality assumption for ANOVA, a Shapiro-Wilk test was conducted on the dependent variable, the OSDI score (Table S1 in S2 File). The test statistics were 0.946 with a p-value of 0.081, indicating that the data did not deviate significantly from normality (p > 0.05). Therefore, the assumption of normality was satisfied, and an ANOVA was conducted.

Additionally, Levene’s test for the homogeneity of variances showed no significant violations of the homogeneity assumption (p > 0.05) for all grouping variables (Table S2 in S2 File). Therefore, one-way ANOVA was performed to compare mean OSDI scores across the groups. To investigate the statistical association and correlation of the DED risk factors among the contact lens wearers, One-way ANOVA and Pearson correlation tests were carried out on the OSDI score of the severity categories (normal, mild to moderate, and severe) with respect to profile characteristics of the study population as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Statistical association (One-Way ANOVA) and correlation (Pearson) among OSDI status (Normal, Mild-toModerate, Severe), OSDI mean scores, and profile characteristics (gender, age, contact lens type, contact lens age, frequency of lubricant eye drops use, cleaning rate of contact lenses, use of mask during contact lens wear, frequency of mask use per day) of the contact lens wearers (301 participants).

Variable Normal Mild-to-Moderate Severe OSDI Mean Score (SD)
Frequency (percentages)
Gender Male 23(33.3%) 27(39.1%) 19(27.5%) 22.61(17.43)
Female 67(28.9%) 106(45.7%) 59(25.4%) 23.12(17.03)
One-Way ANOVA F = 0.047; p = 0.829
Pearson Correlation χ2=0.952; p=0.618
Age 18-24 years old 46(31.7%) 51(35.2%) 48(33.1%) 24.44(18.51)
25-44 years old 43(29.9%) 74(51.4%) 17(18.8%) 21.47(15.80)
≥ 45 years old 1(8.3%) 8(66.7%) 3(25.0%) 24.13(13.34)
One-Way ANOVA F = 1.118; p = 0.328
Pearson Correlation χ2=13.506; p=0.009
Contact lens type Soft 75 (28.7%) 119 (45.6%) 67 (25.7%) 23.44 (16.94%)
Rigid gas permeable (RGB) 15 (38.5%) 13 (33.3%) 11 (28.2%) 19.98 (18.21%)
One-Way ANOVA F = 0.758; p = 0.470
Pearson Correlation χ2=7.797; p = 0.099
Contact lens wear duration per day (in hours) Less than 6 hours 37 (30.6%) 60 (49.6%) 24 (19.8%) 22.50 (16.44%)
7–12 hours 44(30.3%) 61(42.1%) 40(27.6%) 23.18 (19.99%)
More than 12 hours 9 (25.7%) 12 (34.3%) 14 (40%) 27.20 (19.99%)
One-Way ANOVA F = 0.805; p = 0.491
Pearson Correlation χ2=12.179; p=0.058
Contact lens age (in months) Less than 6 months 44 (64.7%) 20 (29.4%) 4 (5.9%) 10.91 (11.47%)
7–12 months 28 (22.8%) 81 (65.9%) 14 (11.4%) 20.53 (11.89%)
More than 12 months 18 (27.3%) 22 (33.3%) 26 (39.4%) 26.23 (18.28%)
One-Way ANOVA F = 39.750; p < 0.001
Pearson Correlation χ2= 142.345; p < 0.001
Frequency of lubricant eye drops use Never 1 (1.2%) 17 (20.5%) 65 (78.3%) 42.37 (13.97%)
Sometimes 9 (8.4%) 87 (81.3%) 11 (10.3%) 22.55 (9.51%)
Always 80 (72.7%) 28 (25.5%) 2 (1.8%) 8.79 (8.92%)
One-Way ANOVA F = 154.410; p < 0.001
Pearson Correlation χ2= 279.553; p < 0.001
Cleaning rate of contact lenses Never 0 (0%) 21 (24.4%) 65 (75.6%) 40.99 (13.57%)
Sometimes 3 (3.1%) 85 (86.7%) 10 (10.2%) 24.11 (10.61%)
Daily 87 (75%) 26 (22.4%) 3 (2.6%) 8.69 (9.03%)
One-Way ANOVA F = 142.520; p < 0.001
Pearson Correlation χ2= 301.620; p < 0.001
Use of mask during contact lens wear No 89 (54.6%) 73 (44.8%) 1 (0.6%) 10.94 (8.34)
Yes 1 (0.7%) 60 (43.5%) 77 (55.8%) 37.26 (13.41)
One-Way ANOVA F = 431.020; p < 0.001
Pearson Correlation χ2= 163.853; p < 0.001
Frequency of mask use per day 0–3 hours 88 (54.3%) 73 (45.1%) 1 (0.6%) 11.12 (8.58)
3–6 hours 2 (2.7%) 53 (73.3%) 18 (24%) 28.03 (8.13)
> 6 hours 0 5 (7.8%) 59 (92.2%) 47.20 (11.75)
One-Way ANOVA F = 405.410; p < 0.001
Pearson Correlation χ2= 761.664; p < 0.001

*Values in bold indicate P < 0.05.

To assess the difference in the mean OSDI score across several categorical variables, the dependent variable OSDI was tested against the following independent variables: sex, age group, type of contact lens, contact lens duration per day, contact lens age, cleaning rate of the contact lens, use of mask during contact lens use, and frequency of mask use per day. Similarly, a chi-square test was conducted to evaluate the relationships between the tested variables and OSDI scores. Statistically significant difference was considered when P-value is less than 0.05. The significant p-values are shown in Table 2. The statistical analysis of OSDI severity categories with respect to age showed that the age group of “25-44 years old” had the lowest severity of symptomatic DED and the lowest mean score, with no significant difference (P > 0.05) among all age groups. However, age was significantly correlated (P < 0.05) with OSDI severity categories. On the other hand, the statistical analysis of OSDI severity categories with respect to sex showed no significant differences or correlations between male and female participants (P > 0.05). Interestingly, the respondents who wore contact lenses for more than 12 months had never cleaned their contact lenses and had never used lubricant eye drops had the highest mean OSDI scores with significant differences (p < 0.05).

The Pearson correlation test supported the hypothesis that the longer the contact lens age (in months), the higher the severity of the symptomatic DED (p < 0.001). Similarly, Pearson analysis confirmed that participants who reported poor compliance with contact lens hygiene and who did not use lubricant eye drops had a higher severity of symptomatic DED (p < 0.001). In contrast, the type of contact lenses and contact lens duration per day showed no significant difference and statistical correlation with symptomatic DED represented by the OSDI mean score and severity categories, respectively (P > 0.05).

Focusing on the mask-related variables, the respondents who wore a mask along with their contact lenses, specifically for more than six hours per day, had the highest mean scores of OSDI with significant differences (p < 0.05). According to the Pearson correlation test, wearing a mask along with contact lenses was found to be statistically correlated (p < 0.001) with the severity of symptomatic DED represented by the OSDI mean score. Additionally, the correlation test confirmed the hypothesis that the longer the use of masks and contact lenses, the higher the severity of symptomatic DED (p < 0.001).

3.2. Analysis of dryness symptoms

The most frequent dryness symptoms were pain and blurred vision, where 62.1% and 60.1% of the study population reported these symptoms on the rate some of the time to all the time, respectively, Fig 1).

Fig 1. Bar graph represents the percentage frequencies of ocular symptoms reported by the study population.

Fig 1

3.3. Analysis of impact of dryness symptoms on vision-related functions

Fig 2 shows the effect of dryness on vision-related functions. Reading and TV watching were the most affected vision-related functions (from “some of the time” to “all the time”) among 53.5% and 51.5% of the study population, respectively. However, night driving and computer use were the least affected activities among the contact lens wearers.

Fig 2. Bar graph representing the percentage frequencies of impact of dryness symptoms on vision-related functions by the sample population.

Fig 2

3.4. Analysis of environmental triggers

Windy conditions and areas that Air conditioners emerged as prominent environmental triggers for dryness symptoms, affecting 67.8% and 66.4% of the study population, respectively. In contrast, low humidity (very dry areas) had the least effect on the dryness symptoms reported by contact lens wearers (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Bar graph representing the percentage frequencies of different environmental triggers to DED symptoms by the sample population.

Fig 3

3.5. Multiple linear regression analysis

A multiple linear regression model was fitted to examine the independent associations between demographic and contact lens–related factors and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score as a continuous outcome. As presented in Table S3 in S2 File, the overall model was statistically significant (F = 126.245, p < 0.001) and demonstrated a strong explanatory power, accounting for 82.8% of the variance in OSDI scores (R2 = 0.828, adjusted R2 = 0.821). Inspection of the residual plots confirmed that the assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, and normality of residuals were met. However, multicollinearity diagnostics indicated that all predictors had variance inflation factor (VIF) values > 5 and tolerance values < 0.2, suggesting a high degree of collinearity among the independent variables.

After adjusting all variables in the model, several predictors were significantly associated with OSDI score. Longer contact lens use in years (B = 2.466, p < 0.001) and higher frequency of mask use (B = 9.745, p < 0.001) were strong positive predictors, indicating that each additional year of lens use and greater mask-wearing frequency were associated with higher OSDI scores, reflecting more severe dry eye symptoms. Similarly, reporting the presence of contact lens–related symptoms (B = 2.234, p < 0.001) was associated with a significant increase in OSDI score.

Conversely, higher rates of compliance with contact lens cleaning (B = –4.445, p < 0.001) and the use of lubricant eye drops (B = –4.430, p < 0.001) were independently associated with lower OSDI scores, suggesting a protective effect against dry eye symptoms. Other factors, including age, gender, mask use as a binary variable, contact lens type, daily hours of lens wear, and simultaneous mask and contact lens use, were not statistically significant predictors in the adjusted model (p > 0.05 for all).

Among the standardized coefficients (β), the frequency of mask use (β = 0.459) emerged as the strongest predictor, followed by contact lens cleaning rate (β = –0.214), lubricant eye drop use (β = –0.209), contact lens–related symptoms (β = 0.124), and years of contact lens use (β = 0.112).

The histogram of the regression standardized residuals was roughly bell-shaped, Fig S1 in S2 File, indicating that the residuals were approximately normally distributed, which supports the assumption of normality. Additionally, the scatter plot of the standardized predicted values against the standardized residuals displayed a random, Fig S2 in S2 File, evenly dispersed pattern without any clear curvature or systematic structure. This suggests homoscedasticity of residuals and confirms that the variance of errors is constant across predicted values, fulfilling one of the key assumptions of linear regression.

4. Discussion

Symptomatic DED has been extensively reported in contact lens-wearers. The DED symptoms associated with contact lens wear can vary depending on various factors, such as contact lens-related factors (e.g., contact lens type, contact lens material and design, wear modality, replacement schedule, and duration of contact lens wear), mask-related factors (e.g., mask wear and frequency of use with/without contact lenses), environmental factors (e.g., low humidity and exposure to higher temperatures), and patient-related factors (e.g., gender, age, poor contact lens wear compliance, and concurrent ocular surface conditions [10,1719].

The contact-lens market in Jordan is evolving. Haddad et al. (2019) reported that the lens prescribing trend in Jordan is in line with global data in terms of lens material, fit type, design, cosmetic lens use, and preference for frequent replacement lenses. However, the procurement of presbyopia and orthokeratology contact lenses remains suboptimal [20]. In the current study, the majority of the participants were females and wore soft contact lenses on a frequent replacement basis. This finding is in agreement with that of a previous report on contact lens prescription trends in Jordan [20].

4.1. Symptomatic DED in the study population

This study aimed to explore DED symptoms among a cohort of contact lens wearers in Jordan, utilizing the ARB-OSDI and employing a cut-off value of OSDI ≥13. Additionally, this investigation aimed to study the factors associated with DED symptomatology within the study sample. This study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the mandatory use of face masks was enforced in public and workplace settings.

The study also revealed that among contact lens wearers, the majority experienced mild-to-severe symptomatic DED, with an overall mean OSDI score indicating notable symptoms.. This finding corresponds with a prior study conducted in Jordan in 2016 by Bakkar et al, which reported a symptomatic DED prevalence of 70% among contact lens wearers. However, the primary focus of this study was to determine the prevalence of DED symptoms and its associated risk factors, including contact lens wear, in a non-clinical population in Jordan [12]. Additionally, this study employed a smaller sample size of 110 contact lens wearers.

The current study found that proportion of symptomatic DED among contact lens wearers is found to be higher than the prevalence rate of DED among contact lens wearers in the literature, which they demonstrated a considerable variability ranging from 15% to 55% [49]. This variability in the literature can be attributed to the characteristics of the study population, differences in the types of contact lens materials used, and differences in diagnostic criteria based on the presence of symptoms, clinical signs of dryness or both [10].

4.2. Risk factors of symptomatic dry eye disease

This study also explored the correlations between different OSDI severity categories and predetermined risk factors. The study showed that age was significantly correlated with OSDI severity categories. This is in accordance with other studies suggesting that aging is a predictor of symptomatic DED [21].

The results also showed no significant difference between the different OSDI severity categories and participants’ gender. However, this finding contradicts other reports that found that the proportion of symptomatic DED in female contact lens wearers was higher than that in male contact lens wearers [10]. The limited representation of male contact lens wearers in the current study may justify this.

Interestingly, the study showed that contact lens wearers who wore their lenses for a period exceeding 12 months and who were non-compliant with the contact lens cleaning regimen had the highest mean OSDI score with significantly higher severity of symptomatic DED. This may be explained by the accumulation of lens deposits, encompassing lipids and proteins, on the surface of the contact lenses during extended lens usage, particularly in conjunction with poor lens hygiene. Lens deposits may alter tear film quality and reduce contact lens wettability, factors that are likely to contribute to the onset of DED symptoms during prolonged contact lens wear [2225].

In contrast, other contact lens-related factors, such as types of contact lenses, that is, soft versus rigid gas permeable lenses, and contact lens wear duration per day, failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the severity of symptoms associated with dryness. The difference in sample size between the groups wearing soft and rigid contact lenses and the groups in terms of daily wear duration may have contributed to the observed outcomes. An increase in the sample size could enhance the ability of this study to detect subtle effects.

The findings show that contact lens wearers who reported always using lubricant eye drops as part of their ocular lubrication regimen had a lower proportion of symptomatic DED, reflected by a reduced mean OSDI score within the normative range. While this observation suggests a potential association between the use of non-preserved lubricant eye drops and reduced dryness severity, causality cannot be inferred. Previous studies have similarly reported that the application of preservative-free lubricating eye drops before and after contact lens wear is associated with improvements in symptoms of contact lens–related dry eye [12,18,2630].

The current study is distinctive in that incorporating a face mask for a prolonged duration during contact lens wear exacerbated self-reported dry eye symptoms (characterized by a significant increase in mean OSDI scores) when compared to short periods of mask wear. This finding is supported by many reports during the COVID-19 pandemic era that confirmed the existence of mask-associated dry eye (MADE) in noncontact lens wearers [19,3138].

4.3. Dryness symptoms

In the present study, participants consistently reported symptoms of ocular dryness, including light sensitivity, gritty eyes, pain, blurred vision, and poor vision. In the study population, the most prevalent symptoms were pain and blurred vision, which were reported at frequencies ranging from some to all times. This finding markedly differs from the DED symptoms reported in a previous study conducted in Jordan, where it was found that “sensitivity to light” was found to be a more prevalent symptom [12]. This disparity suggests that further investigations are needed to explore the distinct prevalent dryness-related symptoms reported by contact lens wearers by studying the potential impact of contact lens interactions with the ocular surface on the manifestation of these particular symptoms.

4.4. Impact of dryness symptoms on vision-related functions

Among the vision-related functions affected by dryness symptoms, reading and watching TV were the most affected, as reported by the study sample. This outcome aligns with expectations, considering that the study was conducted during the COVID-19 era, characterized by lockdowns and prolonged periods of home quarantine that coincided with increased screen time due to online classes and remote work.

4.5. Environmental triggers for dryness symptoms

Among the environmental triggers, wind and air conditioning (AC) were reported by the majority of participants as the most common triggers for DED symptoms. These observations were based on self-reported data and were not statistically tested. The effects of both wind and AC—through dry and recirculated air—can reduce humidity in the surrounding environment, potentially increasing tear film evaporation and ocular surface dryness (40). Additionally, restricted outdoor activities during the pandemic may have reduced exposure to natural elements such as wind and sunlight, potentially heightening sensitivity and intolerance to environmental conditions, which could contribute to increased dryness and discomfort (41).

4.6. Limitations of the study

This study has several limitations. First, reliance on an online survey introduced the potential for self-reporting bias and weakened the finding generalizability. Such a method disproportionately attracted younger, female, and more internet-active individuals, resulting in a skewed age gender distribution within the sample. Second, further limitation may arise from potential variability in participants’ interpretation of the exclusion criteria, particularly concerning active ocular disease and the use of ocular or systemic medications that could affect ocular surface integrity. Although the study employed the OSDI questionnaire as a valid and reliable tool for identifying dryness symptoms, reliance on a single instrument may restrict the comprehensiveness of symptom assessment. Expanding the assessment of symptomatic DED using a designated contact lens dry eye questionnaire, such as the CLDEQ-8, along with additional clinical tests for DED could have enhanced diagnostic accuracy. This approach would not only confirm the diagnosis of symptomatic DED more precisely among contact lens wearers but also eliminate potential confounding factors associated with other DED-related conditions. Moreover, this study did not explore additional potential risk factors that could contribute to the development of DED, including the type of contact lens material, occupational influences, usage of video display terminals, screen time, and smoking habits, which may influence the development or severity of DED and should be considered in future research. Additionally, while the confounding variables were statistically adjusted for in the multivariable model, the possibility of residual confounding from unmeasured factors, such as environmental exposures, hormonal status, or undiagnosed ocular surface disease, cannot be excluded.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of this study suggest a high proportion (70%) of symptomatic DED among contact lens wearers in Jordan assessed by the validated Arabic version of the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). Symptoms of DED were associated with age, extended contact lens usage, suboptimal lens hygiene, and concurrent use of face masks during contact lens wear. Additionally, contact lens wearers, who consistently incorporate lubricant eye drops into their ocular lubrication routine, experience a significantly reduced proportion of symptomatic DED. These findings provide important baseline data for future research investigating behavioral and hygiene-related risk factors for symptomatic DED among the contact lens wearers in Jordan.

Supporting information

S1 File. An Excel sheet representing the coded data of the study population.

(XLSX)

pone.0335254.s001.xlsx (70.9KB, xlsx)
S2 File. Supplementary Tables S1–S3, Figs S1 and S2.

(DOCX)

pone.0335254.s002.docx (90.6KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgment is also given to the Canadian University Dubai (CUD) and Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST) for approving and supervising the study design and protocol. Sincere gratitude is extended to all participants who contributed to this study.

Abbreviations

DED

dry eye disease

OSDI

ocular surface disease index

AC

air-conditioning

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study protocol has received a grant from Deanship of Research at Jordan University of Science and Technology - Research Grant No: 20230271. Acknowledgment is also given to the Canadian University Dubai (CUD) and Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST) for approving and supervising the study design and protocol.

References

  • 1.Stapleton F, Alves M, Bunya VY, Jalbert I, Lekhanont K, Malet F, et al. TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):334–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nichols KK, Redfern RL, Jacob JT, Nelson JD, Fonn D, Forstot SL. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the definition and classification subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:TFOS14–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dumbleton K, Woods CA, Jones LW, Fonn D. The impact of contemporary contact lenses on contact lens discontinuation. Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39(1):93–9. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e318271caf4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Begley CG, Caffery B, Nichols KK, Chalmers R. Responses of contact lens wearers to a dry eye survey. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77(1):40–6. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200001000-00012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Guillon M, Maissa C. Dry eye symptomatology of soft contact lens wearers and nonwearers. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82(9):829–34. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000178060.45925.5d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li W, Sun X, Wang Z, Zhang Y. A survey of contact lens-related complications in a tertiary hospital in China. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018;41(2):201–4. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nagachandrika T, Kumar U, Dumpati S, Chary S, Mandathara PS, Rathi VM. Prevalence of contact lens related complications in a tertiary eye centre in India. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2011;34(6):266–8. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2011.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nichols JJ, Sinnott LT. Tear film, contact lens, and patient-related factors associated with contact lens-related dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(4):1319–28. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-1392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nichols JJ, Ziegler C, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK. Self-reported dry eye disease across refractive modalities. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(6):1911–4. doi: 10.1167/iovs.04-1294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stapleton F, Bakkar M, Carnt N, Chalmers R, Vijay AK, Marasini S, et al. CLEAR - Contact lens complications. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021;44(2):330–67. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2021.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R, Djalilian A, Dogru M, Dumbleton K, et al. TFOS DEWS II diagnostic methodology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15: 539–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bakkar MM, Shihadeh WA, Haddad MF, Khader YS. Epidemiology of symptoms of dry eye disease (DED) in Jordan: A cross-sectional non-clinical population-based study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016;39(3):197–202. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2016.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ghach W, Bakkar MM, Aridi M, Beshtawi I, Doughaily R, Al-Fayoumi N. Prevalence and behavioral-based risk factors (eye cosmetic and tobacco use) of symptomatic dry eye disease in four Middle Eastern countries: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;:3851–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bakkar MM, El-Sharif AK, Al Qadire M. Validation of the Arabic version of the Ocular Surface Disease Index Questionnaire. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021;14(10):1595–601. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2021.10.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Schiffman RM, Christianson MD, Jacobsen G, Hirsch JD, Reis BL. Reliability and validity of the Ocular Surface Disease Index. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(5):615–21. doi: 10.1001/archopht.118.5.615 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Grubbs JR Jr, Tolleson-Rinehart S, Huynh K, Davis RM. A review of quality of life measures in dry eye questionnaires. Cornea. 2014;33(2):215–8. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Koh S. Contact Lens Wear and Dry Eye: Beyond the Known. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2020;9(6):498–504. doi: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kojima T. Contact Lens-Associated Dry Eye Disease: Recent Advances Worldwide and in Japan. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59(14):DES102–8. doi: 10.1167/iovs.17-23685 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Krolo I, Blazeka M, Merdzo I, Vrtar I, Sabol I, Petric-Vickovic I. Mask-Associated Dry Eye During COVID-19 Pandemic-How Face Masks Contribute to Dry Eye Disease Symptoms. Med Arch. 2021;75(2):144–8. doi: 10.5455/medarh.2021.75.144-148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Haddad MF, Bakkar M, Gammoh Y, Morgan P. Trends of contact lens prescribing in Jordan. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016;39(5):385–8. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2016.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wolffsohn JS, Wang MTM, Vidal-Rohr M, Menduni F, Dhallu S, Ipek T, et al. Demographic and lifestyle risk factors of dry eye disease subtypes: A cross-sectional study. Ocul Surf. 2021;21:58–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2021.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mann A, Tighe B. Contact lens interactions with the tear film. Exp Eye Res. 2013;117:88–98. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2013.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Panthi S, Nichols JJ. Imaging Approaches for Contact Lens Deposition. Eye Contact Lens. 2017;43(4):205–12. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rabiah NI, Scales CW, Fuller GG. The influence of protein deposition on contact lens tear film stability. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2019;180:229–36. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2019.04.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Willcox M, Keir N, Maseedupally V, Masoudi S, McDermott A, Mobeen R, et al. CLEAR - Contact lens wettability, cleaning, disinfection and interactions with tears. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021;44(2):157–91. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2021.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Markoulli M, Kolanu S. Contact lens wear and dry eyes: challenges and solutions. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2017;9:41–8. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S111130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McDonald M, Schachet JL, Lievens CW, Kern JR. Systane® ultra lubricant eye drops for treatment of contact lens-related dryness. Eye Contact Lens. 2014;40(2):106–10. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pucker AD. A Review of the Compatibility of Topical Artificial Tears and Rewetting Drops with Contact Lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020;43(5):426–32. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2020.04.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pucker AD, McGwin G Jr, Franklin QX, Dubey J, Nattis A, Lievens C. Application of systane complete for the treatment of contact lens discomfort. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021;44(4):101399. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2020.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Semp DA, Beeson D, Sheppard AL, Dutta D, Wolffsohn JS. Artificial tears: a systematic review. Clin Optom. 2023;9–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Al-Dolat W, Abu-Ismail L, Khamees A, Alqudah N, Abukawan MM, Alrawashdeh HM, et al. Is wearing a face mask associated with symptomatic dry eye disease among medical students during the COVID-19 era? An online survey. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s12886-022-02377-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ali Momin SN, Siddiqui R. Mask-associated dry-eye in COVID-19 pandemic: A case report and review of the literature. J Pak Med Assoc. 2022;72(5):981–2. doi: 10.47391/JPMA.4157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Azzam SH, Nama A, Badarni H, Asael H, Dahoud WA, Mimouni M, et al. Assessment of dry eye disease in N95 versus surgical face mask wearers during COVID-19. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70(3):995–9. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1133_21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Celik E, Polat E, Gunder EK, Barut E, Gonen T. Mask-Associated Dry Eye (MADE) in healthcare professionals working at COVID-19 pandemic clinics. Niger J Clin Pract. 2023;26(3):319–23. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_281_22 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Motwani R, Janti SS, Ganji V, Mali KR, Yadav K, Patnaik N, et al. Face Mask in COVID-19 and Its Association With Dry Eye Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study. Cureus. 2022;14(12):e32937. doi: 10.7759/cureus.32937 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pandey SK, Sharma V. Mask-associated dry eye disease and dry eye due to prolonged screen time: Are we heading towards a new dry eye epidemic during the COVID-19 era?. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69(2):448–9. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_3250_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Petric Vicković I, Šimunović L, Vodanović M, Špiljak B, Patekar L, Ovčarić B, et al. Prolonged Face Mask Wearing Worsens Self-Reported Dry Eye Symptoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Dental Healthcare Practitioners. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2023;57(2):133–44. doi: 10.15644/asc57/2/4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Martinez-Perez C, Monteiro B, Soares M, Portugues F, Matos S, Ferreira A, et al. Influence of Face Masks on the Use of Contact Lenses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(14):7407. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Clara Martínez Pérez

2 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Ghach,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 16 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Clara Martínez Pérez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

Deanship of Research at Jordan University of Science and Technology - Research Grant No: 20230271. 

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Deanship of Research at Jordan University of Science and Technology for their financial support of this work (Research Grant No: 20230271). Acknowledgment is also given to the Canadian University Dubai (CUD) for approving and supervising the study design and protocol. Sincere gratitude is extended to all participants who contributed to this study

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

Deanship of Research at Jordan University of Science and Technology - Research Grant No: 20230271. 

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: 1. The conclusions are appropriately cautious in wording (e.g., “suggest” a high prevalence, and identifying factors as “potential risk factors”). One concern is the use of the term “prevalence” given the non-random sample; while the authors do report the proportion of their sample with DED, this might not represent the true population prevalence in all Jordanian contact lens wearers.

2. Consider a multivariate analysis (such as a logistic regression for DED presence or linear regression for OSDI score) to account for potential confounding between variables. Currently, each risk factor is examined in isolation; a multivariable approach could strengthen the evidence that certain factors are independent predictors of dry eye symptoms.

3. I noted a few minor grammar and wording issues that can be improved: for example, in the results section the word "However" is used in two consecutive sentences. There are also small typos (referring to Levene’s test as “Leven’s test”) and occasional awkward phrasing.

4. Because the sample was gathered via online convenience sampling, it may not be representative of all contact lens wearers in Jordan. The demographic skew (77% female, most under age 45) suggests a bias either in contact lens usage or survey participation. This limits how confidently one can generalize the “prevalence” beyond this surveyed group.

5. The study relies on self-reported symptoms only, without clinical examinations or objective tear film tests. This means the presence of dry eye disease is defined by symptoms alone; some participants might have clinical DED without symptoms or vice versa. The authors did use a symptom score cutoff (OSDI ≥13) to define “symptomatic DED,” which is standard, but the lack of clinical correlation is a constraint (acknowledged in the limitations).

6. Aside from the grammar/spelling issues mentioned earlier, the Results section refers to independent variables (sex, age group, etc.) as “dependent variables” – this should be corrected to avoid confusion. Also, when reporting statistical findings, it would help to provide the actual values (means, confidence intervals) for each group, not just p-values, to give readers a sense of effect size. Currently, some statements describe “highest mean OSDI scores” for certain subgroups without quantifying those means in the text.

Reviewer #2: Comments to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Please find my comments below.

Introduction

The introduction requires improvement in clarity and conciseness. Several sentences are overly long or repetitive, especially in the definitions and mechanisms of dry eye disease (DED). The flow could be enhanced by condensing overlapping information. Transitions between global data and local Jordanian statistics are abrupt, and lines 57–59 mention prevalence without providing concrete global examples or regional contrasts. Furthermore, the rationale for the study is not convincingly presented early in the introduction. Although the COVID-19 pandemic context is relevant, its importance is not emphasized clearly. Many citations are included, but their relevance to the study population is not well explained. A statement in the introduction promises increased awareness and reduction in contact lens-related complications, yet these aims are not mentioned when explaining the study rationale. Additionally, phrases such as “the most prevalent ocular condition” need either proper citation or softening.The study’s objective is not clearly and precisely stated.

Method

In the methods section, there is repetition, particularly in lines 100–104, where the questionnaire details are duplicated. The OSDI scoring intervals (lines 110–114) could be more clearly formatted and explained. The recruitment process lacks a step-by-step explanation. The report of a 100% participation rate is questionable and requires clarification. The method of ensuring that participants completed the questionnaire only once is not described. Using social media for convenience sampling likely introduced bias, favoring younger and more internet-active participants. This should be explicitly acknowledged. Although the OSDI tool is validated, it is not contact lens-specific. The reason for not using the CLDEQ-8 should be stated. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are too vague; for instance, terms like “active ocular disease” and “systemic medications” should be clarified with examples. The OSDI formula is inserted abruptly and would benefit from better formatting and clearer context. Confounding factors are not described, nor is there an explanation of how they were identified or controlled. The manuscript inconsistently uses correlation and association terminology—group comparisons (e.g., ANOVA) and correlational tests (e.g., Pearson) should be clearly distinguished.

Results

In the results section, percentages should be removed from Table 1 to avoid redundancy. Frequency columns should use consistent labeling such as “n (%)” and include column totals where appropriate. Statistical results like Shapiro-Wilk and Levene’s tests are overemphasized and could be summarized briefly or placed in supplementary materials. Statistical analysis descriptions should be placed in the methods section to avoid confusion. The reporting of significant results is repetitive and could be streamlined. The figures and tables are referenced, but without interpretation—readers need guidance on what these visual elements reveal. Phrasing like “recorded the highest mean score” should be replaced with “had the highest mean score” for better readability. The term “OSDI intervals” is unclear and should be replaced with “OSDI severity categories.” Avoid conflating “correlation” with “association,” particularly in categorical data. Where significant ANOVA results exist (e.g., lens age, lubricant use, mask use), post-hoc results such as Tukey HSD should be reported. Effect sizes or confidence intervals would enhance interpretation. It’s also unclear how “contact lens age” was defined—this should be clarified. Mask use data should specify whether it was self-reported and over what period. Any missing or excluded data should be reported along with how they were handled. Percentages should be written consistently, and statistical reporting should use standard notation for test statistics and p-values. Figures 1–3 use only descriptive terms without statistical interpretation. Additionally, the statement about increased screen time contributing to dryness is speculative, as screen use was not directly measured.

Discussion

The discussion repeats content already presented in the introduction and results, especially about mask use and OSDI scoring. These elements should be summarized rather than restated. Associations are sometimes incorrectly framed as causal relationships—for example, suggesting that lubricant use prevents DED, which overstates the data. The discussion includes comparisons with other studies, but when findings differ, the explanations are shallow or missing. Non-significant findings are mentioned but not explored in depth, missing the opportunity for further insight. Although the use of subheadings in the discussion is helpful, transitions between sections are abrupt and need smoothing. Redundant phrasing such as “symptomatic DED among contact lens wearers” should be reduced or varied. Environmental triggers like wind and air conditioning are reported as common but without clarification on whether these observations were statistically tested. Passive voice is used frequently and should be minimized to improve clarity.

The limitations section mentions the use of online surveys but understates the associated biases. Skewed age and gender representation should be acknowledged in more detail. The limitations of using only the OSDI tool should be addressed directly—mentioning that additional clinical measures or more specific tools like the CLDEQ-8 could have strengthened the results. Omitted risk factors, such as screen time, occupation, and smoking, are also important and should be acknowledged more explicitly.

The conclusion repeats content already discussed, with minimal added value. Instead, it should focus on the key findings, their implications for clinical care and policy, and recommendations for future research. Suggestions for future work should be concrete—for example, using clinical tests, evaluating other contact lens types, or conducting longitudinal studies.

Minor corrections

Grammatically, the manuscript requires careful revision. For instance, the phrase “an earlier study” should be clarified to specify which study is being referenced. Line 157 contains a redundant statement that should be reworded. Line 188 has a spacing error and is overly wordy. Line 167 misuses the term “confirmed the hypothesis,” which should be revised to “supported the hypothesis.”

Overall, while the topic is important and the data are relevant, the manuscript needs substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. A major revision is recommended.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Dr Ngozika Esther Ezinne

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Oct 27;20(10):e0335254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335254.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Aug 2025

Reviewer #1:

1. The conclusions are appropriately cautious in wording (e.g., “suggest” a high prevalence, and identifying factors as “potential risk factors”). One concern is the use of the term “prevalence” given the non-random sample; while the authors do report the proportion of their sample with DED, this might not represent the true population prevalence in all Jordanian contact lens wearers. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We agree that, since our sample was not randomly selected, the proportion of participants with DED in our study does not represent the true population prevalence among all Jordanian contact lens wearers. Our use of the term “prevalence” was intended descriptively; to refer to the proportion observed in our sample. To avoid any misinterpretation, we have revised the text to clarify that our results reflect the observed proportion in our study population, rather than the population prevalence, and have adjusted the wording throughout the manuscript accordingly.

2. Consider a multivariate analysis (such as a logistic regression for DED presence or linear regression for OSDI score) to account for potential confounding between variables. Currently, each risk factor is examined in isolation; a multivariable approach could strengthen the evidence that certain factors are independent predictors of dry eye symptoms. Response: a multiple regression analysis was conducted and presented in the revised manuscript.

3. I noted a few minor grammar and wording issues that can be improved: for example, in the results section the word "However" is used in two consecutive sentences. There are also small typos (referring to Levene’s test as “Leven’s test”) and occasional awkward phrasing. Response: Revised.

4. Because the sample was gathered via online convenience sampling, it may not be representative of all contact lens wearers in Jordan. The demographic skew (77% female, most under age 45) suggests a bias either in contact lens usage or survey participation. This limits how confidently one can generalize the “prevalence” beyond this surveyed group. Response: To overcome the generalizability of our findings based on bias either in contact lens usage or survey participation, the term “Prevalence” is replaced by “The proportion of DED in the study sample” We have revised the manuscript to clarify this limitation in both the Discussion and Conclusion sections and to ensure that our wording reflects that our results represent the proportion within our surveyed group rather than the true population prevalence.

5. The study relies on self-reported symptoms only, without clinical examinations or objective tear film tests. This means the presence of dry eye disease is defined by symptoms alone; some participants might have clinical DED without symptoms or vice versa. The authors did use a symptom score cutoff (OSDI ≥13) to define “symptomatic DED,” which is standard, but the lack of clinical correlation is a constraint (acknowledged in the limitations). Response: We totally agree with reviewer 1 as all the findings in this study represents the proportion of DED in the study sample of DED based on the symptoms. That’s why the term “symptomatic DED” is utilized instead of DED in all over the manuscript.

6. Aside from the grammar/spelling issues mentioned earlier, the Results section refers to independent variables (sex, age group, etc.) as “dependent variables” – this should be corrected to avoid confusion. Also, when reporting statistical findings, it would help to provide the actual values (means, confidence intervals) for each group, not just p-values, to give readers a sense of effect size. Currently, some statements describe “highest mean OSDI scores” for certain subgroups without quantifying those means in the text. Response: Revised.

Reviewer #2:

Dear Editor,

Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Please find my comments below.

Introduction

The introduction requires improvement in clarity and conciseness. Several sentences are overly long or repetitive, especially in the definitions and mechanisms of dry eye disease (DED). The flow could be enhanced by condensing overlapping information. Transitions between global data and local Jordanian statistics are abrupt, and lines 57–59 mention prevalence without providing concrete global examples or regional contrasts. Furthermore, the rationale for the study is not convincingly presented early in the introduction. Although the COVID-19 pandemic context is relevant, its importance is not emphasized clearly. Many citations are included, but their relevance to the study population is not well explained. A statement in the introduction promises increased awareness and reduction in contact lens-related complications, yet these aims are not mentioned when explaining the study rationale. Additionally, phrases such as “the most prevalent ocular condition” need either proper citation or softening. The study’s objective is not clearly and precisely stated. Response: We thank the reviewer for these constructive and detailed suggestions to strengthen the Introduction. We have revised this section to improve clarity, conciseness, and logical flow.

Method

• In the methods section, there is repetition, particularly in lines 100–104, where the questionnaire details are duplicated Response: Deleted.

• The OSDI scoring intervals (lines 110–114) could be more clearly formatted and explained Response: Revised.

• The recruitment process lacks a step-by-step explanation. Response: Revised

• The report of a 100% participation rate is questionable and requires clarification. The method of ensuring that participants completed the questionnaire only once is not described. Response: The figure reflects the proportion of respondents who completed the survey after initiating it, not the proportion of all individuals invited to participate. Since the survey was distributed via online platforms with open access, a traditional response rate based on invitations sent was not applicable. To minimize duplicate responses, we used mandatory unique identifiers where possible. We have now added a detailed explanation of these procedures in the Methods section to clarify how we addressed this issue.

• Using social media for convenience sampling likely introduced bias, favouring younger and more internet-active participants. This should be explicitly acknowledged. Response: Acknowledged in study limitations.

• Although the OSDI tool is validated, it is not contact lens-specific. The reason for not using the CLDEQ-8 should be stated. Response: We chose the OSDI because it is the only validated dry eye questionnaire currently available in Arabic, in addition to its broad applicability, established reliability, and ability to capture ocular surface symptoms relevant to both contact lens wearers and non-wearers. This also allowed for comparison with previous studies in similar populations. However, we agree that the CLDEQ-8 is a valuable contact lens–specific tool, and this important point was acknowledged in the study’s limitations.

• Inclusion and exclusion criteria are too vague; for instance, terms like “active ocular disease” and “systemic medications” should be clarified with examples. We acknowledge that some terms, such as “active ocular disease” and “systemic medications,” might have been interpreted variably by participants due to their general wording. To address this limitation, we have already clarified these terms with examples in the questionnaire, specified that such disease or medication that affect the ocular surface integrity and acknowledged the potential for variability in participant interpretation as a limitation of the study.

• The OSDI formula is inserted abruptly and would benefit from better formatting and clearer context. Response: we have revised the formula to improve readability.

• Confounding factors are not described, nor is there an explanation of how they were identified or controlled. Response: confounding factors are now described in the revised manuscript.

• The manuscript inconsistently uses correlation and association terminology—group comparisons (e.g., ANOVA) and correlational tests (e.g., Pearson) should be clearly distinguished. Response: the terms “correlation” and association” are used now correctly describing the used test.

Results

• In the results section, percentages should be removed from Table 1 to avoid redundancy. Frequency columns should use consistent labelling such as “n (%)” and include column totals where appropriate. Response: Revised

• Statistical results like Shapiro-Wilk and Levene’s tests are overemphasized and could be summarized briefly or placed in supplementary materials. Response: Moved to supplementary materials.

• Statistical analysis descriptions should be placed in the methods section to avoid confusion. The reporting of significant results is repetitive and could be streamlined. Response: The Methods section is now updated to include a clear description of the multiple linear regression analysis conducted to identify independent predictors of symptomatic dry eye severity using the continuous OSDI score. This addition clarifies how potential confounding factors were accounted for in our analysis. The revised Data Analysis subsection now explicitly details the use of multiple regression alongside the other statistical tests, enhancing the methodological transparency of our study.

• The figures and tables are referenced, but without interpretation—readers need guidance on what these visual elements reveal. Response: Revised

• Phrasing like “recorded the highest mean score” should be replaced with “had the highest mean score” for better readability. Response: Revised

• The term “OSDI intervals” is unclear and should be replaced with “OSDI severity categories.” Response: Revised

• Avoid conflating “correlation” with “association,” particularly in categorical data. Where significant ANOVA results exist (e.g., lens age, lubricant use, mask use), post-hoc results such as Tukey HSD should be reported. Effect sizes or confidence intervals would enhance interpretation. Response: Revised.

• It’s also unclear how “contact lens age” was defined—this should be clarified.

Response: In our study, “contact lens age” referred to the total duration (in months) that a participant had been wearing contact lenses since first use. We have clarified this definition in the Methods section to avoid any ambiguity.

• Mask use data should specify whether it was self-reported and over what period.

Response: Mask use data in our study were self-reported by participants through the online questionnaire. Participants were asked to report their typical mask-wearing habits during the three months preceding the survey. This clarification has been added to the Methods section.

• Any missing or excluded data should be reported along with how they were handled. Response: In our survey platform, incomplete questionnaires could not be submitted electronically; participants were required to answer all mandatory items before submission. As a result, there were no missing or partially completed data in the final dataset and all the submitted questionnaires were complete and included in the analysis.

• Percentages should be written consistently, and statistical reporting should use standard notation for test statistics and p-values. Response: Revised

• Figures 1–3 use only descriptive terms without statistical interpretation. Response: These figures were intentionally presented to provide a descriptive overview of the distribution of self-reported ocular symptoms within the study population. As these graphs depict proportions rather than comparisons between groups, no inferential statistical analyses were appropriate or required. Our interpretation was therefore limited to reporting the observed percentages, in line with the descriptive objective of these figures.

Additionally, the statement about increased screen time contributing to dryness is speculative, as screen use was not directly measured.

Response: We have revised the results/discussion to clarify that this point is based on evidence from previous literature and should be interpreted as a potential contributing factor rather than a finding from our data. Also screen time was not measured in this study this was stated clearly in the manuscript.

Discussion

The discussion repeats content already presented in the introduction and results, especially about mask use and OSDI scoring. These elements should be summarized rather than restated. Associations are sometimes incorrectly framed as causal relationships—for example, suggesting that lubricant use prevents DED, which overstates the data. The discussion includes comparisons with other studies, but when findings differ, the explanations are shallow or missing. Non-significant findings are mentioned but not explored in depth, missing the opportunity for further insight. Although the use of subheadings in the discussion is helpful, transitions between sections are abrupt and need smoothing. Redundant phrasing such as “symptomatic DED among contact lens wearers” should be reduced or varied. Environmental triggers like wind and air conditioning are reported as common but without clarification on whether these observations were statistically tested. Passive voice is used frequently and should be minimized to improve clarity. Response: We have revised and updated the discussion section to make it more concise and informative.

The limitations section mentions the use of online surveys but understates the associated biases. Skewed age and gender representation should be acknowledged in more detail. The limitations of using only the OSDI tool should be addressed directly mentioning that additional clinical measures or more specific tools like the CLDEQ-8 could have strengthened the results. Omitted risk factors, such as screen time, occupation, and smoking, are also important and should be acknowledged more explicitly. Answer: The limitation section is now updated.

The conclusion repeats content already discussed, with minimal added value. Instead, it should focus on the key findings, their implications for clinical care and policy, and recommendations for future research. Suggestions for future work should be concrete—for example, using clinical tests, evaluating other contact lens types, or conducting longitudinal studies. Response: Revised.

Minor corrections

Grammatically, the manuscript requires careful revision. For instance, the phrase “an earlier study” should be clarified to specify which study is being referenced. Answer: Revised.

Line 157 contains a redundant statement that should be reworded. Answer: Revised.

Line 188 has a spacing error and is overly wordy. Response: Revised.

Line 167 misuses the term “confirmed the hypothesis,” which should be revised to “supported the hypothesis.” Response: Revised

Overall, while the topic is important and the data are relevant, the manuscript needs substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. A major revision is recommended. Thank you for your valuable feedback

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0335254.s003.docx (28.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Clara Martínez Pérez

8 Oct 2025

Symptomatic dry eye disease (DED) in cohort of contact lens wearers in Jordan

PONE-D-25-34122R1

Dear Dr. Ghach,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Clara Martínez Pérez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed which include concerns on typos, use of multivariate analysis, correction to the independent variables, and the misuse of the term prevalence.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the thoughtful revision—clarity and organization have improved. I have several additional suggestions to strengthen the manuscript further.

Recruitment is via social-media convenience sampling, yet parts of the text describe “random distribution.

Symptomatic DED defined by OSDI ≥13 is acceptable, but the manuscript should consistently cite the Arabic OSDI validation and justify the cut-points. Prevalence proportion(s) should include 95% CIs overall and by key strata.

The primary model is a multiple linear regression of OSDI scores with R²=0.828 while all predictors have VIF>5 and tolerance <0.2. This implies severe multicollinearity/overfitting, undermining inference. Several predictors also overlap conceptually (mask use, mask frequency, mask+CL interaction; “CL_symptoms” predicting a symptom scale may be tautological). As is, the adjusted associations are not reliable. Given OSDI’s bounded distribution and the frequent use of categories, a sensitivity analysis using ordinal logistic regression for OSDI categories would strengthen robustness.

Numerous univariable tests (ANOVA, χ², correlations) are presented without multiplicity control. Either limit inferential emphasis to the multivariable model (reporting effect sizes with CIs) or apply FDR control. With n=301, reliance on Shapiro–Wilk p=0.081 to claim normality of OSDI is weak; OSDI is bounded (0–100) and often right-skewed. Robust SEs and visual diagnostics (Q–Q, scale-location) are more appropriate. The reported residual diagnostics are minimal.

Mask variables (binary, frequency, concurrent CL use) are likely correlated with pandemic-period behaviors and other confounders (screen time, indoor AC exposure), which were not measured. Causal language should be tempered; associations are cross-sectional and confounded.

Abstract states “24.87% were soft contact lens wearers,” yet the text says most wore soft lenses. This discrepancy suggests data/typing errors that need resolving. The abstract over-weights ANOVA results; emphasize adjusted findings (with CIs) instead.

Including a variable “CL_symptoms” as a predictor of OSDI (a symptom scale) risks circularity. This should be removed or justified; otherwise, the model inflates explanatory power.

STROBE adherence: key items are missing or under-reported (sampling frame detail, missing data handling, sensitivity analyses, participant flow, sample-size rationale/power).

The MADE discussion should acknowledge the directionality limits and potential residual confounding (e.g., screen time, indoor climate, ocular surface comorbidities).

Ensure consistent terminology (“soft contact lenses” vs “rigid gas permeable”; “mask use with CL”; “cleaning frequency”).

Recommendation

Minor Revision. The topic is suitable and regionally valuable, but publication should be contingent on substantial methodological and reporting improvements.

Specific Requests to Authors

1. Clarify sampling (convenience via social media), remove references to “random,” and temper generalizability/prevalence claims across the manuscript (title/abstract/results/discussion).

2. Correct data inconsistencies (e.g., % soft lens users) and provide a table of lens types with clear denominators.

3. Apply multiplicity control (e.g., Benjamini–Hochberg) or explicitly restrict inference to pre-specified outcomes/predictors.

4. Provide prevalence/proportion estimates with 95% CIs (overall and by key strata).

5. Temper causal language regarding mask use and lubricants; frame as associations and note unmeasured confounding (screen time, indoor humidity, lens materials).

6. Adhere to STROBE, including sample-size rationale

7. Language/formatting edit for clarity and consistency.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Clara Martínez Pérez

PONE-D-25-34122R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ghach,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Clara Martínez Pérez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. An Excel sheet representing the coded data of the study population.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0335254.s001.xlsx (70.9KB, xlsx)
    S2 File. Supplementary Tables S1–S3, Figs S1 and S2.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0335254.s002.docx (90.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0335254.s003.docx (28.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES