Author
Listed:
- Furong Tang
- Jiwei Wang
- Zheng Tang
- Mei Kang
- Qinglong Deng
- Jinming Yu
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of the McMonnies questionnaire (MQ) as a screening tool for dry eye (DE) among Chinese ophthalmic outpatients. Methods: We recruited 27718 cases from 94 hospitals (research centers), randomly selected from 45 cities in 23 provinces from July to November in 2013. Only symptomatic outpatients were included and they were in a high risk of DE. Outpatients meeting the criteria filled out questionnaires and then underwent clinical examinations by qualified medical practitioners. We mainly evaluated sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) to evaluate the accuracy of the questionnaire in the diagnosis of dry eye. Results: Of all the subjects included in the study, sensitivity, specificity, and DOR were 0.77, 0.86 and 20.6, respectively. AUC was 0.865 with a 95% CI (0.861, 0.869). The prevalence of DE among the outpatients claiming “constantly” as the frequency of symptom was over 90%. Scratchiness was a more accurate diagnostic indication than dryness, soreness, grittiness or burning. Different cut points of McMonnies Index (MI) scores can be utilized to optimize the screening results. Conclusions: MQ can be an effective screening tool for dry eye. We can take full advantage of MI score during the screening process.
Suggested Citation
Furong Tang & Jiwei Wang & Zheng Tang & Mei Kang & Qinglong Deng & Jinming Yu, 2016.
"Accuracy of McMonnies Questionnaire as a Screening Tool for Chinese Ophthalmic Outpatients,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-11, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0153047
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153047
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153047. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.