. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: Eye Contact Lens. 2017 May;43(3):192–198. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000249

Table 3.

The mean intensity of dimensions of the SF-MPQ (mean(SD)) in the dry eye sample compared with common etiologies of neuropathic pain.

SF-MPQ dimension score	Dry eye sample (mean (SD))	Central neuropathic pain conditions (mean(SD))		Diabetic neuropathic pain (mean(SD))	Post-herpetic neuralgia pain (mean(SD))
	(n=81^*)	Siddall et al. (n=136)³²	Onouchi et al. (n=103)³³	Satoh et al. (n=123)³⁴	Rowbotham et al. (n=110)³⁵
Total	13.0 (9.7)	17.9 (9.1)^†	12.2 (9.1)	9.4 (7.5)^†	18.7 (8.5)^†
Sensory	9.7 (7.1)	13.7 (6.6)^†	9.5 (7.1)	7.4 (5.5)^†	14.5 (6.4)^†
Affective	3.2 (3.1)	4.3 (3.2)^†	2.7 (2.6)	2.0 (2.5)^†	4.1 (3.2)

SF-MPQ=short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire; SD=standard deviation.

Siddall et al. study³² included patients with central neuropathic pain conditions from spinal cord injury.

Onouchi et al. study³³ included patients with central neuropathic pain conditions from spinal cord injury (37%), cerebral stroke (58%), and multiple sclerosis (5%).

In order to make data from the current dry eye sample comparable to those from the literature, only subjects who rated their average eye pain during the past week at least 4 out of 10 on a NRS were included.

^†

P value comparison of means between non-ocular pain population and dry eye population <0.05 (2 tailed independent t test).