4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Change in tear film characteristics in visual display terminal users

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 85-89

出版社

WICHTIG PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.5301/ejo.5000525

关键词

Dry eye; Schirmer test; Tear break-up; Tear osmolarity; Visual display terminal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate changes in symptoms and tear film characteristics in young computer users. Methods: Fifty-one computer users and 26 controls were evaluated at the beginning and the end of the working day. Subjects with ocular or systemic disease, history of ocular surgery, use of contact lenses or glasses with antireflective surfaces, and use of topical or systemic medications were excluded from the study. Computer use duration, Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, tear osmolarity, Schirmer test, tear break-up time (TBUT), and ocular surface vital dye staining were performed prevocationally and postvocationally. Results: The mean age was 31.2 +/- 6.3 years in computer users and 33.7 +/- 5.8 in controls. The mean reported computer use was 6.9 +/- 2.7 hours/day in computer users and 0.4 +/- 0.5 hours/day in controls. The mean prevocational and postvocational values in computer users for OSDI, osmolarity, TBUT, and Schirmer test were 23.2 +/- 16.6 and 27.0 +/- 17.6, 306.6 +/- 14.9 and 311.0 +/- 12.5 mOsm/L, 13.9 +/- 4.0 and 13.2 +/- 3.8 seconds, 22.7 +/- 11.8 and 20.6 +/- 12.5 mm, respectively. The vocational change was significant for all parameters in the computer user group but not in the control group. The osmolarity-based dry eye diagnosis was 27.4% in the computer users while it was 15.4% in the control group. Oxford score was only grade 1 in 5.9% of visual display terminal users and did not change at the end of the day. Conclusions: Both symptoms and signs of dry eye increased significantly with computer use. Approximately 1 of every 3-4 computer users was found to have dry eye with higher tear osmolarity values.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据