Background/aims Dry eye disease (DED) questionnaires would ideally be easy and fast to answer and explore the main aspects of disease burden and satisfaction (efficacy and tolerability) with treatment. This pilot study evaluates the Pentascore questionnaire for routinely assessing DED.
Methods The Pentascore combines five visual analogue scales (VAS) to assess the intensity and frequency of ocular pain/discomfort, the impact of DED on daily activities and visual tasks and the efficacy and tolerability of ongoing DED treatment(s). This retrospective study compared Pentascore to the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, fluorescein tear break-up-time, corneal staining and Schirmer I test.
Results For 161 DED patients, the algebraic mean (±SE) for the Pentascore was 52.6±1.8, the mean standardised area of the radar graph was 32.1±1.7 (out of 100) and the mean score for the OSDI was 52.6±1.8. Both questionnaires were highly statistically correlated (R=0.74 for both algebraic score and radar area, p<0.001), and each of five Pentascore VAS was significantly correlated with the OSDI (p<0.05). Corneal staining score (CSS) was correlated with two Pentascore VAS (impact of DED on daily activities and visual tasks), and there was a trend towards a correlation between CSS and the area of the radar graph (p=0.09).
Conclusions This pilot study indicates that the Pentascore can rapidly and effectively assess the burden of DED and satisfaction with treatments. Compared with the algebraic mean, the estimation of the area of the radar graph likely improves the sensitivity for detecting differences/changes in symptoms and treatment follow-up.
- diagnostic tests/investigation
- lacrimal gland
- ocular surface
Data availability statement
Data available upon request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors ML, JB, AR, CB and WBHS revised the literature and drafted the manuscript. NM, ML, CB, AR, GF, RG and AB conceived, supervised and revised the manuscript. All authors provided critical revision of the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests ML has served as a consultant for Allergan, Alcon, Bausch and Lomb, MSD, Santen/Novagali and Théa. AL served as a consultant for Alcon, Novartis, Santen, Laboratories Théa, Allergan, and Bausch & Lomb. AR served as a consultant for Thea, Horus Pharma, Pfizer, Allergan, personal Alnylam. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.