Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jul 19;17(7):e0271228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271228

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score questionnaire

Napaporn Tananuvat 1,*, Sasiwimon Tansanguan 1, Nahathai Wongpakaran 2, Tinakon Wongpakaran 2
Editor: Adrienne Csutak3
PMCID: PMC9295941  PMID: 35852996

Abstract

Dry eye disease (DED) is a common and growing eye problem worldwide. Chronic DED symptoms can, subsequently, affect the patients’ quality of life (QOL). This prospective cross-sectional study aimed to assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score (DEQS-Th) questionnaire and to evaluate its accuracy in DED screening. Psychometric validation was conducted on DED participants. All participants completed the DEQS-Th and other measurements including the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Internal consistency, concurrent validity, convergent, and discriminant validity were evaluated. The standardized response mean (SRM) was used to evaluate the responsiveness of the DEQS-Th. The optimal cut-off score of DEQS-Th for DED screening was assessed. Among 100 participants with a mean age of 50.9 ± 14.4 years, and 89.0% female, the internal consistency of the DEQS-Th was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.80–0.92). The test-retest intraclass correlation was 0.82–0.92. It showed concurrent validity with the OSDI (r = 0.694, p < .001) and EQ-5D-5L index scores (r = -0.578, p < .001). DED is suspected if the DEQS-Th score ≥ 18.33 (AUC = 0.897, sensitivity 90.0%, specificity 76.7%) or its Short Form score ≥ 3 (AUC 0.857, sensitivity 93.0%, specificity 63.3%). The SRM of the symptom subscale of DEQS-Th was 0.82, indicating relatively large responsiveness, whereas the impact on daily life subscale and the summary score was small. In conclusion, the DEQS-Th is valid and reliable for evaluating the multifaceted effects of DED on a patient’s QOL. It can be useful for primary assessment and monitoring of DED in routine clinical practice.

Introduction

Dry eye disease (DED) is characterized by a vicious cycle of tear film instability and hyperosmolarity leads to ocular surface inflammation and damage, and neurosensory abnormalities [1]. It is a common eye problem worldwide and one of the frequent causes of patients seeking eye care practitioners [2]. DED prevalence is expected to be increased further because of the increased use of visual display terminals, increased aging population, and stressful socio-environment [3]. Chronic DED symptoms of ocular discomfort and visual impairment are associated with limitations in performing daily activities, decreased quality of life (QOL), work productivity, and economic burden [48].

According to the International Dry Eye Workshop 2017(DEWS II) report, the diagnosis of DED involves the presence of symptoms assessed by a dry eye questionnaire as well as any of three specific signs including tear break-up time (TBUT), tear osmolarity, and ocular surface staining [9]. Likewise, the DED diagnosis proposed by the Asia Dry Eye Society in 2016 was based on subjective symptoms and reduced TBUT [10]. In this regard, the quantification of subjective symptoms is one of the primary methods of DED diagnosis.

Even though symptoms and signs of dry eye are inconsistent and vary across individuals and DED sub-types [11,12], the ability to accurately quantify ocular symptoms is important for screening patients who may need additional evaluation. It is also critical to monitor the disease progression and treatment response. However, it is difficult to standardize and quantify patients’ symptoms in clinical settings. Thus, it is important to accurately assess ocular symptoms associated with DED, its impact on everyday function, or health-related QOL through valid and reliable questionnaires.

Currently, several dry eye questionnaires have been used in gathering symptoms in clinical research and practice [9]. However, six dry eye questionnaires have questions on health-related QOL and have been evaluated for psychometric properties including the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Living (IDEEL), the 25-item National Eye Institute’s Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), the Dry Eye–Related Quality-of-Life Score (DEQS), the University of North Carolina Dry Eye Management Scale (UNC DEMS) and the Chinese version of the Dry Eye–Related Quality of Life (CDER QOL) [13]. All of these questionnaires have different purposes and limitations. The OSDI has 12 questions, which renders it comparatively short with a low time burden. However, it is difficult to determine whether it allows comprehensive all dry eye symptoms and health-related QOL considerations. The IDEEL has 57 questions with comprehensive coverage that takes a long time to complete and is not free for use. The NEI VFQ-25 is a questionnaire that can be applied to various ophthalmic diseases and conditions. However, its reliability and validity in DED remain unclear. The DEQS which was developed in Japan in 2013, has good reliability, validity, and responsiveness in evaluating the effects of DED on daily living [14], while the UNC DEMS [15] and CDER QOL [16] are relatively new questionnaires developed according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance [17]. The three latest questionnaires have not been validated in other languages.

Despite the high prevalence of DED in Thailand [18], limited measurements exist to assess both symptoms and health-related QOL in Thai. Our preliminary study on the Thai version of the DEQS (DEQS-Th) demonstrated that this tool is valid and user-friendly in the assessment of dry eye symptoms among normal study samples [19]. This present study aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the DEQS-Th questionnaire including its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in DED patients. Also, the sensitivity and specificity of the DEQS-Th for DED screening were conducted.

Materials and methods

This prospective cross-sectional study was approved by the Institute Review Board before being initiated (study code: OPT-2561-005562) and followed the Declaration of Helsinki. All volunteers signed a written informed consent after a complete explanation.

Study participants

One hundred participants, diagnosed as DED at the Ophthalmology Clinic, Chiang Mai University Hospital, were recruited between 2018–2019. The eligible criteria included adult subjects aged ≥ 18, voluntary participation, and literate in Thai. The criteria for diagnosis of DED complied with those defined by the DEWS II. Table 1 shows the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participant selection.

Table 1. Participant selection criteria.

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
• Age ≥ 18 years
• Criteria for DED diagnosis a
    1. Ocular symptoms (OSDI score ≥ 13)
    2. Tear film abnormality b
        (1) TBUT ≤ 5 seconds
        (2) Schirmer test with anesthesia < 5 mm
    3. Ocular surface abnormality: corneal fluorescein staining c
• Literate in the Thai Language
• BCVA worsen than 6/18
• Ocular infection or inflammation
• Ocular surgery within 6 months
• Systemic diseases or disabilities that affect daily life activities

BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity; DED, dry eye disease.

a The criteria was modified according to those defined by the International Dry Eye Workshop 2017 by Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society [9].

b The tear function was considered abnormal if (1) or (2) applied.

c Abnormality of the ocular surface was designated as a positive corneal fluorescein staining (scores range 1–3).

All participants underwent complete ophthalmic examination for both eyes including measuring of visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and additional dry eye tests such as corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), TBUT, and basic tear secretion (Schirmer’s test). CFS scores were assigned based on a modified van Bijsterveld grading system (the average score was the mean of the sum scores of the 3-area nasal, mid, and temporal cornea ranging from 0 [none] to 3 [maximum]) [20]. TBUT was measured using fluorescein staining without anesthesia. The participant was asked to blink several times. The interval between the last complete blink and the first dry spot on the cornea was measured and the average of three consecutive TBUT was recorded. Schirmer’s test was performed with anesthesia. After drying the excess tears, the Schirmer strip was placed at the lateral one-third of the lower fornix for five minutes. The strip was then removed and the wetting length of the filter paper was measured in mm.

Procedure

All DED participants were asked to complete the DEQS-Th questionnaire and additional health-related QOL questionnaires including the OSDI and the 5-level EuroQol‑5‑Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L).

To evaluate the reproducibility, the DED participants completed the DEQS-TH twice. The re-test was performed two weeks after the first test.

To evaluate the responsiveness or change of the questionnaire regarding the response to treatment, ten patients received diquafosol tetrasodium 3% ophthalmic solution six times/day for treatment of DED. This eye drop is a purinergic P2Y2 receptor agonist on the ocular surface. It stimulates both water and mucin secretion from conjunctival epithelial cells and goblet cells, thereby rehydrating the ocular surface independent of tear secretion from the lacrimal glands [2123]. Participants were asked to complete the DEQS-Th before and at four weeks (± 3 days) after diquafosol treatment.

Instruments

Dry Eye-related Quality-of-Life Score

The DEQS questionnaire contains 15 questions divided into two subscales: Bothersome Ocular Symptoms (6 questions) and Impact on Daily Life (9 questions). Each question has columns A and B for the frequency and severity, respectively. Response to the frequency portion in column A is based on a 5-point scale ranging from “none of the time” (0) to “all of the time” (4). A frequency score of 1–4 points prompts the respondent to proceed to the severity in column B to answer regarding the degree of severity on a four-point scale. The DEQS score is calculated with the following formula: (sum of the degree scores for all questions answered) x 25/ (total number of questions answered). The score “0” indicates the best possible score (no symptoms) and “100” indicates the worst possible score (maximum symptoms) [14].

Thai version of the Dry Eye-related Quality-of-Life Score

The DEQS-Th was developed from the English version of the DEQS questionnaire [14]. In brief, after permission from the owner of the DEQS (the Asia Dry Eye Society and Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Japan.), the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the DEQS questionnaire into Thai was conducted according to principles of good practice reported by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) [24]. Language translation and cultural adaptation, then preliminary psychometric validation with 30 normal participants were performed in our previous study [19].

Ocular Surface Disease Index

The OSDI consists of 12 questions with 3 subscales: ocular symptoms, vision-related function, and environmental triggers. Each DED patient rated symptoms on a 5-point scale from 0 (never) to 4 (always). The OSDI total score was obtained by multiplying the sum scores of all questions answered by 25 and dividing by the total number of questions answered, giving the OSDI a scale from 0–100 with higher scores reflecting greater disability. According to the OSDI scores, the patients were classified as normal (scores 0–12), mild (13–22), moderate (23–32), and severe (33–100) symptoms [25]. The Thai version of OSDI was used in this study in compliance with the English version of the OSDI (Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA, USA).

EuroQol‑5‑Dimensions 5‑Level

The EQ-5D, developed by EuroQoL, is composed of five items concerning `mobility´, `self-care, `usual activities´, `pain/discomfort´, and `anxiety/depression [26]. It is a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (no problem) to 5 (unable/extreme problems). The EQ-5D has two parts, 1) a descriptive system that calculates a five-digit code specifying a specific health state to the index score. The score ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 meaning death and 1 meaning complete health. However, the index score can also have a negative value, meaning worse than dead, 2) and a visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), ranging from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state). The Thai version EQ-5D-5L and the index score were used in this study [27].

Statistical analysis

The participants’ demographic data were descriptively analyzed. The CFS, TBUT, and Schirmer test from the worse eye was used for data analysis. For numerical data, the mean (SD) was used for data with normal distribution, while the median (range) was used for non-normally distributed data. The internal consistency was calculated to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire; Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ≥ 0.7 was considered acceptable. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine the temporal relationship in test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient to evaluate the correlations between the DEQS-Th scores and other measurements including the OSDI and EQ-5D-5L index scores.

Convergent validity is denoted by the level of correlation between constructs and instruments. These relations may be strong or weak correlations depending on the relationship expected between the constructs or instruments compared [28]. We created a correlation matrix between the QOL assessed by the subscale Impact on Daily Life scores of the DEQS-Th and scores from EQ-5D. Correlations would be expected to be high if the similar domain of impact of daily life and EQ-5D were assessed, thereby demonstrating convergent validity.

Discriminative validity was conducted to assess whether a measure can discriminate between the groups [28]. The total scores of DEQS-Th were analyzed to compare normal and clinical samples to indicate its discriminatory ability.

Responsiveness is defined as an ability of a measurement to detect clinically significant changes over time [29]. It was evaluated by comparing the DEQS-Th scores at baseline and follow-up periods after treatment using the standardized response mean (SRM). SRM values of 0.8, 0.5, and 0.2 were considered to be large, moderate, and small, respectively [30].

Floor or ceiling effects indicate the limitation of content validity, and reliability of the questionnaire. Floor or ceiling effects were suggested to be no more than 15% [31]; otherwise, it may affect responsiveness as the participants’ changes cannot be assessed [29].

To find the optimal cut-off score of DEQS-Th for suspected DED, the gold standard diagnosis for dry eye was made by using the OSDI score of ≥ 13 and the TBUT of ≤ 5 seconds. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated and the area under the ROC (AUC) was analyzed to determine the accuracy of the DEQS-Th. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and estimated cost were calculated. To simply apply in real-life practice, we also evaluated the Short Form DEQS-Th (SF DEQS-Th) for DED screening by using a sum of frequency scores of subscale Bothersome Ocular Symptoms. Our previous published data from non-DED participants were served as a control in some parts of the analysis [19]. A p-value < 0.05 was used to determine the significant level. SPSS program (version 22.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for data analysis.

Results

Participants

Among100 DED participants, 89% were females with a mean age of 50.9 ± 14.4 (20–84) years. The participants’ demographic data were demonstrated in Table 2. According to the OSDI grading severity, the dry eye symptoms were classified as a mild-to-moderate degree in 30% and a severe degree in 70% of the patients. The mean OSDI score was 46.8 ± 21.4 for all DED participants. No floor or ceiling effects were found in the total scores of the DEQS-Th.

Table 2. Demography and characteristics of DED and non-DED participants.

Characteristics DED
(n = 100)
Control**
(n = 30)
p-value
    Age: mean (SD)
        range, years
50.9 (14.4)
20–84
38.6(12.9)
22–60
< .001a
    Gender: Female, n (%) 89 (89.0%) 23 (76.7%) .086a
    Ocular diseases, n (%)
    • DED
    • Cataract
    • Pterygium
    • Pinguecula
    • Glaucoma
80 (80.0%)
75(75%)
10(10%)
10(10%)
2(2%)
1(1%)
0 (0%) < .001a
    Systemic diseases, n (%)
    • Hypertension
    • Dyslipidemia
    • Allergy
    • Systemic lupus erythematosus
    • Diabetic mellitus
    • Inactive cancer
    • Hypothyroidism
    • Osteoporosis
    • Miscellaneous*
65 (65.0%)
23(23%)
18(18%)
16(16%)
8(8%)
5(5%)
5(5%)
4(4%)
2(2%)
8(8%)
10 (33.3%)
2(6.7%)
3(10%)
-
2(10%)
10(33%)
-
-
1(3.3%)
-
.008a
    Regular exercise, n (%) 42 (42.0%) 5 (16.7%) .011b
    Wearing contact lens, n (%) 4 (3.8%) 0 (0%) .266a
    Smoking, n (%) 2 (2.0%) 2 (6.7%) .228a
DEQS-Th score: mean (SD)
    Ocular symptoms subscale 18.5 (6.1) 9.3(7.9) < .001b
    Impact on daily life subscale 45.4 (22.0) 15.4(15.7) < .001b
    Summary score 43.7 (19.8) 14.8(12.7) < .001b

DED, dry eye disease; DEQS-Th, the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score.

* Gout (2), anemia (1), chronic kidney disease (1), coronary artery disease (1), gastroesophageal reflux disease (1), migraine headache (1), polycystic ovarian syndrome (1).

**Data from our previous published study in normal participants [19].

a The χ2 test was used for statistical comparisons

b The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical comparisons.

Psychometric analysis

Item analysis

The mean frequency and degree score of each item, as well as the total DEQS-Th score, were significantly higher in DED participants than in non-DED participants indicating discriminant validity (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 3. Mean score of each item of the DEQS-Th between DED and non-DED participants.
Group Statistics Frequency
p-valuea Degree p-valuea
DED Control* DED Control*
Bothersome Ocular Symptoms
1. Foreign body sensation 2.12(0.97) 1.03(1.00) < .001 2.21(0.87) 1.03 (1.03) < .001
2.Dry sensation in eyes 2.52(0.96) 0.80(0.93) < .001 2.49(0.86) 0.73(0.83) < .001
3. Painful or sore eyes 1.00(1.12) 0.27(0.58) .001 1.15(1.25) 0.30(0.65) < .001
4.Ocular fatigue 1.77(1.15) 0.80(0.93) < .001 1.85(1.15) 0.73(0.83) < .001
5. Heavy sensation in eyelids 1.17(1.19) 0.40(0.81) .001 1.20(1.21) 0.30(0.60) < .001
6.Redness in eyes 0.84(1.00) 0.20(0.41) .001 0.96(1.16) 0.23(0.50) .001
Impact on Daily Life
1. Difficulty in opening eyes 1.00(1.15) 0.10(0.40) < .001 1.18(1.31) 0.10(0.40) < .001
2. Blurred vision when watching something 2.40(0.99) 1.17(1.09) < .001 2.50(0.98) 1.33(1.16) < .001
3. Sensitivity to bright light 2.21(1.12) 0.80(0.96) < .001 2.37(1.17) 0.87(1.04) < .001
4. Problems with eyes when reading 2.20(1.13) 0.83(1.09) < .001 2.29(1.07) 0.97(1.19) < .001
5. Problems with eyes when watching television or looking at a computer or cell phone 2.28(1.06) 0.77(0.86) < .001 2.38(1.05) 0.87(0.97) < .001
6. Feeling distracted because of eye symptoms 1.64(1.19) 0.47(0.68) < .001 1.78(1.25) 0.50(0.73) < .001
7. Eye symptoms affecting work 1.81(1.22) 0.60(0.97) < .001 1.94(1.25) 0.67(1.03) < .001
8. Not feeling like going out because of eye symptoms 1.15(1.21) 1.70(0.46) < .001 1.28(1.29) 0.23(0.63) < .001
9. Feeling depressed because of eye symptoms 0.55(0.91) 0.10(0.40) .010 0.64(1.03) 0.10(0.40) .006

DED, dry eye disease; DEQS-Th, the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score.

a The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical comparisons

*Adapted from a previously published study in normal participants [19].

Reliability

The results of internal consistency were demonstrated in Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha for the frequency and degree score of the subscale ocular symptoms, impact on daily life, and summary score range from 0.81 to 0.92. The two-week test-retest reliability was evaluated in 90 DED participants. The ICC ranged from 0.80 to 0.92, indicating excellent reproducibility.

Table 4. Internal consistency and reproducibility of the DEQS-Th.
Subscale Internal consistency:
Cronbach’s alpha (N = 100)
Test-retest:
Reproducibility (ICC) (N = 90)
Frequency Degree Frequency Degree
Ocular symptoms 0.81 0.82 0.80 0.82
Impact on daily life 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.90
Summary score 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

DEQS-Th, the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score; ICC, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient.

Concurrent and convergent validity

Concurrent Validity: The DEQS-Th had a significantly positive correlation with OSDI (r = 0.694, p < 0.001) and each subscale score of the OSDI (r = 0.449 to 0.672, p < 0.001). The DEQS-Th showed a significantly negative correlation with EQ-5D-5L index scores (r = -0.578, p < 0.001), indicating concurrent validity (Table 5). However, the DEQS-Th scores were not correlated with any clinical dry eye tests including TBUT, CFS, and Schirmer’s test.

Table 5. Correlation between DEQS-Th, OSDI, index score of EQ-5D, and clinical tests among DED patients.
Correlations Eye Symptoms Impact on Daily life Summary Scores
r p r p r p
OSDI 0.588** < .001 0.686** < .001 0.694** < .001
• Ocular symptoms 0.606** < .001 0.641** < .001 0.672** < .001
• Vision-related function 0.471** < .001 0.604** < .001 0.593** < .001
• Environmental triggers 0.449** < .001 0.556** < .001 0.551** < .001
EQ-5D-5L index scores -0.535** < .001 -0.543** < .001 -0.578** < .001
Clinical dry eye tests
• TBUT -0.046 .646 -0.050 .625 -0.052 .609
• Schirmer’s test 0.076 .600 0.147 .307 0.131 .363
• CFS 0.046 .648 0.023 .824 0.034 .740

CFS, Corneal fluorescein staining; DED, dry eye disease; DEQS-Th, the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score; EQ‑5D‑5L, EuroQol‑5‑Dimensions 5‑Level; OSDI, Ocular Surface Disease Index; TBUT, tear break-up time.

Convergent Validity: Table 6 shows the correlation matrix between the QOL assessed by the subscale Impact on Daily Life of the DEQS-Th and scores from EQ-5D items, depression item of DEQS-Th significantly related to anxiety/depression items of EQ-5D, higher than other dimensions. The items of eye functions such as opening eyes, blurred vision, and sensitivity to bright light were related more to mobility, self-care, and usual activity of the EQ-5D. The items of QOL that were related to function such as reading, watching, and studying were, as expected, significantly related to the physical function domain of EQ-5D rather than the anxiety/depression domain. Items “Feeling distracted” and “Not feeling like going out” were related to both physical and anxiety/depression as they were involved in concentration. All significant correlations indicate convergent validity.

Table 6. Correlation matrix between the quality of life assessed by the subscale Impact of Daily Life scores and scores from EQ-5D-5L items among DED patients.
Subscale Impact on Daily Life Mobility Self-care Usual activities Pain/
discomfort
Anxiety/
depression
Difficulty in opening eyes 0.521** 0.462** 0.381** 0.339** 0.413**
2. Blurred vision when watching something 0.195 0.332** 0.382** 0.249* 0.219*
3. Sensitivity to bright light 0.202* 0.313** 0.298** 0.087 0.206*
4. Problems with eyes when reading 0.322** 0.390** 0.266** 0.191 0.203*
5 Problems with eyes when watching television or looking at a computer or cell phone 0.150 0.245* 0.343** 0.210* 0.200*
6. Feeling distracted because of eye symptoms 0.250* 0.356** 0.371** 0.249* 0.352**
7. Eye symptoms affecting work 0.326** 0.444** 0.454** 0.248* 0.319**
8. Not feeling like going out because of eye symptoms 0.315** 0.419** 0.377** 0.397** 0.408**
9. Feeling depressed because of eye symptoms 0.335** 0.487** 0.469** 0.368** 0.559**

DED, dry eye disease; EQ‑5D‑5L, EuroQol‑5‑Dimensions 5‑Level.

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Clinical validity and responsiveness

The responsiveness was evaluated in ten patients receiving diquafosol treatment. At four weeks after treatment, the symptom scores of the DEQS-Th and CFS were significantly improved and the SRM were 0.816 and 1.061, respectively (Table 7).

Table 7. Mean and standardized response mean of the DEQS-Th scores evaluated in patients treated with diquafosol (n = 10).
Variables Mean (SD) p-value SRM
Before treatment After treatment
DEQS-Th scores
Bothersome Ocular Symptoms 43.75 (21.72) 29.17 (14.03) .025a 0.816
Impact on Daily Life 45.00 (29.01) 38.33 (22.79) .333b 0.258
Summary score 44.50 (24.98) 34.67 (18.39) .169b 0.453
Clinical dry eye tests
TBUT (sec) 3.50 (1.27) 4.30 (2.06) .196a 0.480
Schirmer’s test (mm) 5.30 (4.06) 5.55 (3.48) .759b 0.066
CFS (score 0–3) 1.00 (0.82) 0.31 (0.48) .024b 1.061

DEQS-Th, the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score; TBUT, tear break-up time; CFS, corneal fluorescein staining; SRM, standardized response mean.

a An Independent Samples t-test was used for statistical comparisons

b The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was used for statistical comparisons.

Accuracy for DED screening

In predicting DED against the gold standard, we used the AUC as the criterion to compare the following set of items. The scale provided AUCs of 0.897 (p<0.001, 95%CI = 0.831 to 0.943) denoting good accuracy performance [32] (Fig 1A). The DEQS-Th yielded a sensitivity of 90.00 and specificity of 76.67% for the cut-off score ≥ 18.33, based on Youden’s index [33] (S1 Table). The AUCs of the SF DEQS-Th was 0.857 (p<0.001, 95% CI 0.785–0.912) and the optimal cut-off value was ≥ 3, which yielded a sensitivity of 93.0% and specificity of 63.3% (Fig 1B, S2 Table).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Receiver operating characteristic curve of the DEQS-Th scores (A) and the Short Form DEQS-Th scores (B) for the prediction of dry eye disease diagnosis. DEQS-TH; the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score.

Discussion

This study demonstrates the reliability and validity of the DEQS-Th questionnaire in dry eye patients. Our preliminary study found that the DEQS-Th has good internal consistency when tested in normal participants (Cronbach alpha values of the Bothersome Ocular Symptoms, the Impact on Daily Life, and the summary scores were 0.71, 0.88, and 0.89, respectively) [19]. When tested in DED patients, the DEQS-Th has excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability similar to those of the original version of DEQS (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83 to 0.93 and ICC = 0.81 to 0.93) [14].

In addition, the DEQS-Th questionnaire has been shown to correlate well with the OSDI, which is a current gold standard. The OSDI is one of the most frequently used tools in DED assessment and has good psychometric properties in the assessment of subjective dry eye symptoms and their effects on visual-related activities within the previous week [25]. This study demonstrated that the DEQS-Th questionnaire has a criterion (concurrent) validity with the OSDI, consistent with a related study by Inomata et al. that demonstrated a strong correlation between the DEQS and the Japanese version of OSDI (J-OSDI) scores. They found that the J-OSDI scores tended to be higher than the DEQS (31.6 vs. 27.6) which was in accordance with our study [34].

Chronic DED can have multi-faceted effects on a patient’s health including personality [35] and psychosomatic symptoms [7,36]. A previous study found that OSDI scores significantly correlated with the DEQS, anxiety, depression, and stress scores. Moreover, the severity of DED symptoms impacted more on the depressive symptoms [36]. Recently, a large-scale study using the mobile application suggests that depressive symptoms are more common in individuals with more severe dry eye symptoms [7]. The original DEQS questionnaire has been reported to correlate well with the mental components of the NEI VFQ-25 [14]. In this study, the QOL assessed by the subscale Impact on Daily Life of the DEQS-Th demonstrated convergent validity with the EQ-5D-5L. It is noted that all impact on QOL items is significantly related to the self-care and usual activities of the EQ-5D-5L, while most items are related to anxiety/depression indicating that DED influenced both the function and mental health of each affected individual. Nevertheless, DEQS-Th scores did not correlate with clinical signs of dry eye. This finding agrees with previous studies regarding the discordance between symptoms and signs of DED [11,12].

The discriminant validity of the DEQS-Th was verified from the finding that all DEQS-Th scores were significantly higher in the DED than those of the control groups. Our findings are in accordance with Sakane’s study even though the average scores of subjects with DED and non-DED (33.7 vs. 6.0) were lower than those in our study [14]. The reasons may be due to the difference in the study population. Besides, both convergent and discriminant validity are evidence of the construct validity of the DEQS-Th questionnaire.

This study also examined the effect of treatment by using the DEQS-Th. We found that the symptom scores and CSF significantly improved after four weeks of diquafosol treatment. Although other parameters improved after receiving diquafosol, they did not reach statistical significance. Our results comply with a previous study using the DEQS questionnaire to evaluate the effects of diquafosol in DED [37]. They found that diquafosol improved both symptoms and signs in DED patients. Compared to Sakane’s study, the DEQS scores and clinical signs (TBUT and fluorescein staining) significantly improved after treatment with a punctal plug [14]. The different results may be because the effects of topical medication like diquafosol may take more time than performing a lacrimal punctal occlusion. With a greater number of the study samples, diquafosol might have significantly changed the DEQS-Th scores and TBUT. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that DEQS-Th was useful in assessing the changes in DED symptoms and the therapeutic effect.

In predicting performance, DEQS-Th is shown to have good accuracy for detecting DED compared to the OSDI (AUC = 0.897 and 0.744 for DEQS and OSDI, respectively) [38]. This study also demonstrated the cut-off score of the DEQS-Th of ≥ 18.33 for screening DED. Practically, a cut-off score of 18 can be applied even though the values of sensitivity and specificity might be slightly changed. This cut-off value is higher than the value of > 15 which was previously proposed by Ishikawa [39]. Ishikawa’s study was conducted among 333 soldiers (mostly males), while most of the subjects in our study were relatively older females with more severe dry eye symptoms. The different cut-off values might be due to the variation of the patient demographics such as sex, age, and ethnicity. In addition, this study also provided the cut-off score of the SF DEQS-Th by using the subscale ocular symptoms for DED screening and the value of ≥ 3 was the optimal criterion. The SF DEQS-Th is simple and can, further, be widely used in screening individuals with suspected DED. Thus, the burden for the physicians in real-life practice can be lowered. However, caution should be applied to diagnose DED based on symptoms only because the discrepancy between symptoms and signs from asymptomatic patients often occurs [12]. Therefore, it is important to use both the questionnaire and clinical examination for a holistic assessment of DED.

The strength of this study is a comprehensive assessment of the DEQS-Th, providing robust evidence in terms of its psychometric properties and performance prediction for detecting DED. Some limitations need to be mentioned. First, the study was conducted in a university hospital, tertiary care setting with a relatively high prevalence, compared to that of the general population with most patients experiencing a more severe degree of DED. Second, other factors such as medication, depression, anxiety, and environmental effects were not accounted for. This may have affected the results. Last, the sample size for testing responsiveness was small.

Conclusions

The DEQS-Th is valid and reliable for evaluating both dry eye symptoms and their impact on a patient’s QOL. It demonstrates psychometric properties that can be useful for primary evaluation and monitoring of DED in clinical practice and research. This study also provides the cut-off score of the DEQS-Th for screening individuals with suspected DED, thus preventing morbidity from untreated disease.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Criterion values of the DEQS-Th and coordinates of the ROC curve.

DEQS-Th, the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score; ROC, the receiver operating characteristic.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Criterion values of the Short Form DEQS-Th and coordinates of the ROC curve.

DEQS-Th, the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score; ROC, the receiver operating characteristic.

(DOCX)

S1 Dataset. Dataset of this study.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mrs. Supaporn Martin for her kind providing language help.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

Yes. This research was funded by the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University Endowment Fund, grant number 010-2562 to N.T. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  • 1.Craig JP, Nichols KK, Akpek EK, Caffery B, Dua HS, Joo CK, et al. TFOS DEWS II Definition and Classification Report. Ocul Surf 2017;15(3):276–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.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]
  • 3.Uchino M, Yokoi N, Uchino Y, Dogru M, Kawashima M, Komuro A, et al. Prevalence of dry eye disease and its risk factors in visual display terminal users: the Osaka study. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156(4):759–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.05.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.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]
  • 5.Uchino M, Schaumberg DA. Dry Eye Disease: Impact on Quality of Life and Vision. Curr Ophthalmol Rep 2013;1(2):51–7. doi: 10.1007/s40135-013-0009-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Na KS, Han K, Park YG, Na C, Joo CK. Depression, Stress, Quality of Life, and Dry Eye Disease in Korean Women: A Population-Based Study. Cornea 2015;34(7):733–8. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Inomata T, Iwagami M, Nakamura M, Shiang T, Fujimoto K, Okumura Y, et al. Association between dry eye and depressive symptoms: Large-scale crowdsourced research using the DryEyeRhythm iPhone application. Ocul Surf 2020;18(2):312–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2020.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yu J, Asche CV, Fairchild CJ. The economic burden of dry eye disease in the United States: a decision tree analysis. Cornea 2011;30(4):379–87. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181f7f363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R, Djalilian A, Dogru M, Dumbleton K, et al. TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report. Ocul Surf 2017;15(3):539–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tsubota K, Yokoi N, Shimazaki J, Watanabe H, Dogru M, Yamada M, et al. New Perspectives on Dry Eye Definition and Diagnosis: A Consensus Report by the Asia Dry Eye Society. Ocul Surf 2017;15(1):65–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2016.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nichols KK. Patient-reported symptoms in dry eye disease. Ocul Surf 2006;4(3):137–45. doi: 10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70040-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sullivan BD, Crews LA, Messmer EM, Foulks GN, Nichols KK, Baenninger P, et al. Correlations between commonly used objective signs and symptoms for the diagnosis of dry eye disease: clinical implications. Acta Ophthalmol 2014;92(2):161–6. doi: 10.1111/aos.12012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Okumura Y, Inomata T, Iwata N, Sung J, Fujimoto K, Fujio K, et al. A Review of Dry Eye Questionnaires: Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 2020;10(8). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10080559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sakane Y, Yamaguchi M, Yokoi N, Uchino M, Dogru M, Oishi T, et al. Development and validation of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score questionnaire. JAMA Ophthalmol 2013;131(10):1331–8. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.4503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grubbs J Jr., Huynh K, Tolleson-Rinehart S, Weaver MA, Williamson J, Lefebvre C, et al. Instrument development of the UNC Dry Eye Management Scale. Cornea 2014;33(11):1186–92. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zheng B, Liu XJ, Sun YF, Su JZ, Zhao Y, Xie Z, et al. Development and validation of the Chinese version of dry eye related quality of life scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017;15(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0718-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims, December 2009 [cited 22 May 2022]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/media/77832/download. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 18.Lekhanont K, Rojanaporn D, Chuck RS, Vongthongsri A. Prevalence of dry eye in Bangkok, Thailand. Cornea 2006;25(10):1162–7. doi: 10.1097/01.ico.0000244875.92879.1a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tansanguan S, Tananuvat N, Wongpakaran N, Wongpakaran T, Ausayakhun S. Thai version of the dry eye-related quality-of-life score questionnaire: preliminary assessment for psychometric properties. BMC Ophthalmol 2021;21(1):310. doi: 10.1186/s12886-021-02077-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.van Bijsterveld OP. Diagnostic tests in the Sicca syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol 1969;82(1):10–4. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1969.00990020012003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Li Y, Kuang K, Yerxa B, Wen Q, Rosskothen H, Fischbarg J. Rabbit conjunctival epithelium transports fluid, and P2Y2(2) receptor agonists stimulate Cl(-) and fluid secretion. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2001;281(2): C595–602. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.2001.281.2.C595 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Murakami T, Fujihara T, Horibe Y, Nakamura M. Diquafosol elicits increases in net Cl- transport through P2Y2 receptor stimulation in rabbit conjunctiva. Ophthalmic Res 2004;36(2):89–93. doi: 10.1159/000076887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Koh S. Clinical utility of 3% diquafosol ophthalmic solution in the treatment of dry eyes. Clin Ophthalmol 2015; 9:865–72. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S69486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 2005;8(2):94–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.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]
  • 26.The EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16(3):199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health 2011;14(8):1142–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life. 3rd ed. West Sussex: Wiley; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60(1):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 1996;76(10):1109–23. doi: 10.1093/ptj/76.10.1109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995;4(4):293–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01593882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Somoza E, Soutullo-Esperon L, Mossman D. Evaluation and optimization of diagnostic tests using receiver operating characteristic analysis and information theory. Inter Biomed Comput 1989;24(3):153–89. doi: 10.1016/0020-7101(89)90029-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950;3(1):32–5. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Inomata T, Nakamura M, Iwagami M, Midorikawa-Inomata A, Okumura Y, Fujimoto K, et al. Comparing the Japanese Version of the Ocular Surface Disease Index and Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score for Dry Eye Symptom Assessment. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 2020;10(4). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10040203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ichinohe S, Igarashi T, Nakajima D, Ono M, Takahashi H. Symptoms of Dry Eye Disease and Personality Traits. PLoS One 2016;11(11): e0166838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Asiedu K, Dzasimatu SK, Kyei S. Impact of Dry Eye on Psychosomatic Symptoms and Quality of Life in a Healthy Youthful Clinical Sample. Eye Contact Lens 2018;44 Suppl 2: S404–s9. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Utsunomiya T, Kawahara A, Hanada K, Yoshida A. Effects of Diquafosol Ophthalmic Solution on Quality of Life in Dry Eye Assessed Using the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score Questionnaire: Effectiveness in Patients While Reading and Using Visual Display Terminals. Cornea 2017;36(8):908–14. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001241 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Midorikawa-Inomata A, Inomata T, Nojiri S, Nakamura M, Iwagami M, Fujimoto K, et al. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Ocular Surface Disease Index for dry eye disease. BMJ Open 2019;9(11): e033940. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ishikawa S, Takeuchi M, Kato N. The combination of strip meniscometry and dry eye-related quality-of-life score is useful for dry eye screening during health checkup: Cross-sectional study. Medicine 2018;97(43): e12969. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Adrienne Csutak

18 May 2022

PONE-D-22-00892Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score questionnairePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tananuvat,

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 Jun 26 2022 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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,

Adrienne Csutak, MD, PhD, MSc

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 noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

********** 

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

********** 

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review

The manuscript reports on a follow-up investigation of the author’s previous article on the Dry Eye-related Quality-of-life Score (DEQS) questionnaire translated to the Thai language, DEQS-Th, for use in Thailand. They have used statistical methods for producing quantitative measures of the effectiveness of the questionnaire for screening patients with suspected dry eye disease (DED). They compared DEQS-Th with other DED tests and evaluated reliability, internal consistency, test-retest correlation, responsiveness, and accuracy of the DEQS-Th.

The authors report cut-off scores to be used for screening and detecting DED using the DEQS-Th. Inconsistencies between the Abstract, Results and Discussion are noted below. However, there is a fundamental issue relative to the cut-off scores that should be addressed. The DEQS-Th cut-off scores are reported as “>X” for diagnostic tests and “>Y” for ocular symptoms. As can be seen from the Supplemental Tables S1 and S2, as the score rises, the sensitivity of the test decreases while the specificity increases. This is a standard property of Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves (Fig. 1). Is it preferable to have a higher cut-off with decreased sensitivity (fewer cases of DED detected) and increased specificity (fewer false positives)? Or is it better to have a lower cut-off with increased sensitivity (more cases of DED detected) and decreased specificity (more false positives)? The authors should acknowledge that using a cut-off value represents a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. If they recommend using “>” with the cut-off, they should justify the choice being made between sensitivity and specificity.

Some specific comments:

Lines 30-31, 281-282, 344: The cut-off scores, “>18.33“ and “>19”, for rating the DEQ-Th diagnostic tests are not equivalent. As can be seen in the Supplementary S1 Table, there is a difference between a cut-off of 18.33 and any other cut-off value. Only 18.33 gives the sensitivity of 90 and specificity of 76.67. For any other cut-off number, the sensitivity and specificity will be different. To report a cut-off of 19, the authors should recalculate the sensitivity and specificity corresponding to the cut-off and report those results in lines 281-282. In any event, the reported cut-off, sensitivity and specificity in the Abstract (lines 30-31) and the cut-off in the Discussion (line 344) need to be changed to be consistent with the results reported in the Results on lines 281-282. In addition, “>” is inappropriate if the reported cut-off is supposed to represent a particular sensitivity and specificity.

Lines 31-32, 283-284, 350: The cut-off scores, “>3” and “>4”, for rating the DEQ-Th using subscale ocular symptoms for DED screening are not equal. As can be seen in the Supplementary S2 Table, there is a difference between a cut-off of 3 and a cut-off of 4. A cut-off of 3 gives the sensitivity equal to 93.00 and specificity equal to 63.33, while a cut-off of 4 gives a sensitivity of 86.00 and a specificity of 66.67. The cut-off, sensitivity and specificity given in the Abstract (lines 31-32) and the cut-off in the Discussion (line 350) need to be consistent with the cut-off, sensitivity and specificity given in the Results in lines 283-284. As noted above, here too, “>” is inappropriate if the reported cut-off is supposed to represent a particular sensitivity and specificity.

Lines 73: The DEQS was developed in 2013, not 2014.

Lines 148-154: For the OSDI, the patients use a 5-point scale, 0-4. Need to specify how this is translated to a 0-100 scale – to obtain the total OSDI score, calculate the sum of scores of all questions answered times 25 divided by total number of questions answered, giving the OSDI a scale from 0-100.

Lines 209, 220, 226: none-DED should be non-DED

Lines 421-423: Add the date of the FDA document, December 2009, to Ref 17 and update the availability date from 2021 to be current in 2022.

Supplementary Material: The results presented in this manuscript, Tables 2-7 and S1 and S2, are based on data collected in the course of this research. The data have not been made available with this submission.

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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

[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. 2022 Jul 19;17(7):e0271228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271228.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 May 2022

Response to Reviewers

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your time for your kind review and constructive comments on the manuscript entitled “Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score questionnaire” (Submission ID PONE-D-22-00892).

We have carefully studied your comments and made corrections as suggested.

Please find enclosed the revised version of our manuscript highlighted in yellow and the detailed point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewer.

We hope that our responses would be satisfactory.

Sincerely yours,

Napaporn Tananuvat, M.D.

(On behalf of the co-authors)

Reviewer #1: Review

The manuscript reports on a follow-up investigation of the author’s previous article on the Dry Eye-related Quality-of-life Score (DEQS) questionnaire translated to the Thai language, DEQS-Th, for use in Thailand. They have used statistical methods for producing quantitative measures of the effectiveness of the questionnaire for screening patients with suspected dry eye disease (DED). They compared DEQS-Th with other DED tests and evaluated reliability, internal consistency, test-retest correlation, responsiveness, and accuracy of the DEQS-Th.

The authors report cut-off scores to be used for screening and detecting DED using the DEQS-Th. Inconsistencies between the Abstract, Results and Discussion are noted below. However, there is a fundamental issue relative to the cut-off scores that should be addressed. The DEQS-Th cut-off scores are reported as “>X” for diagnostic tests and “>Y” for ocular symptoms. As can be seen from the Supplemental Tables S1 and S2, as the score rises, the sensitivity of the test decreases while the specificity increases. This is a standard property of Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves (Fig. 1). Is it preferable to have a higher cut-off with decreased sensitivity (fewer cases of DED detected) and increased specificity (fewer false positives)? Or is it better to have a lower cut-off with increased sensitivity (more cases of DED detected) and decreased specificity (more false positives)? The authors should acknowledge that using a cut-off value represents a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. If they recommend using “>” with the cut-off, they should justify the choice being made between sensitivity and specificity.

Response: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We apologize for the inconsistencies. The data are now corrected. We strongly agree with you that there is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity using the different cut-off scores. That’s why we use a cut-off of ≥18.33 that yields a sensitivity of 90.00% and a specificity of 76.67%. This optimal criterion also provides the lowest cost (0.131) when the cost estimation is taken into account. In the revised manuscript, we apply “≥” for the criterion values in both Supplement S1 Table and S2 Table as suggested.

Some specific comments:

Lines 30-31, 281-282, 344: The cut-off scores, “>18.33“ and “>19”, for rating the DEQ-Th diagnostic tests are not equivalent. As can be seen in the Supplementary S1 Table, there is a difference between a cut-off of 18.33 and any other cut-off value. Only 18.33 gives the sensitivity of 90 and specificity of 76.67. For any other cut-off number, the sensitivity and specificity will be different. To report a cut-off of 19, the authors should recalculate the sensitivity and specificity corresponding to the cut-off and report those results in lines 281-282. In any event, the reported cut-off, sensitivity and specificity in the Abstract (lines 30-31) and the cut-off in the Discussion (line 344) need to be changed to be consistent with the results reported in the Results on lines 281-282. In addition, “>” is inappropriate if the reported cut-off is supposed to represent a particular sensitivity and specificity.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. In the revised manuscript, the cut-off score of ≥ 18.33 was used consistently in the Abstract, the Results, and the Discussion part.

Practically, we suggest a cut-off score of ≥ 18 for simple use of the DEQS-TH questionnaire even though the exact sensitivity and specificity may be slightly changed from the original 18.33.

This statement is added in the Discussion part (lines 346-347).

Lines 31-32, 283-284, 350: The cut-off scores, “>3” and “>4”, for rating the DEQ-Th using subscale ocular symptoms for DED screening are not equal. As can be seen in the Supplementary S2 Table, there is a difference between a cut-off of 3 and a cut-off of 4. A cut-off of 3 gives the sensitivity equal to 93.00 and specificity equal to 63.33, while a cut-off of 4 gives a sensitivity of 86.00 and a specificity of 66.67. The cut-off, sensitivity and specificity given in the Abstract (lines 31-32) and the cut-off in the Discussion (line 350) need to be consistent with the cut-off, sensitivity and specificity given in the Results in lines 283-284. As noted above, here too, “>” is inappropriate if the reported cut-off is supposed to represent a particular sensitivity and specificity.

Response: Thanks again for your comment. The cut-off score ≥ 3 was used consistently in the revised manuscript.

Lines 73: The DEQS was developed in 2013, not 2014.

Response: Thank you for the correction. The year of the DEQS development is changed to be… “2013” (line 73).

Lines 148-154: For the OSDI, the patients use a 5-point scale, 0-4. Need to specify how this is translated to a 0-100 scale – to obtain the total OSDI score, calculate the sum of scores of all questions answered times 25 divided by total number of questions answered, giving the OSDI a scale from 0-100.

Response: The calculation of the OSDI total score is added up as suggested as… “The OSDI total score was obtained by multiplying the sum scores of all questions answered by 25 and dividing by the total number of questions answered, giving the OSDI a scale from 0-100 with higher scores reflecting greater disability” (Lines 150-152).

Lines 209, 220, 226: none-DED should be non-DED

Response: Thanks for your careful review. These typing errors are corrected. We also re-check thorough the manuscript for any other mistakes.

Lines 421-423: Add the date of the FDA document, December 2009, to Ref 17 and update the availability date from 2021 to be current in 2022.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. This reference is edited as suggested (line 425).

Supplementary Material: The results presented in this manuscript, Tables 2-7 and S1 and S2, are based on data collected in the course of this research. The data have not been made available with this submission.

Response: We believe that all relevant data are within the paper. However, the data are enclosed with this revision.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Adrienne Csutak

27 Jun 2022

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score questionnaire

PONE-D-22-00892R1

Dear Dr. Tananuvat,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Adrienne Csutak, MD, PhD, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Adrienne Csutak

11 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-00892R1

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score questionnaire

Dear Dr. Tananuvat:

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

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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Adrienne Csutak

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 Table. Criterion values of the DEQS-Th and coordinates of the ROC curve.

    DEQS-Th, the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score; ROC, the receiver operating characteristic.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Criterion values of the Short Form DEQS-Th and coordinates of the ROC curve.

    DEQS-Th, the Thai version of the Dry Eye-Related Quality-of-Life Score; ROC, the receiver operating characteristic.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Dataset. Dataset of this study.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES