Accuracy of Patient Self-Diagnosis of Dry Eye Versus Clinical Meibomian Gland Assessment: A Cross-Sectional Study from Pakistan

Dry eye disease (DED) is defined as a multifactorial condition of the ocular surface characterized by instability of the tear film, leading to discomfort, visual disturbance, and potential damage to the ocular surface [1]. It is one of the most common ocular disorders encountered in clinical practice, affecting a large proportion of the population worldwide. The prevalence of DED varies across populations, with estimates ranging from 5% to 50% depending on diagnostic criteria and geographical location [2].

 The tear film consists of three essential layers: the mucin layer, the aqueous layer, and the lipid layer. Each layer plays a critical role in maintaining ocular surface health and visual clarity. The lipid layer, produced by the meibomian glands located within the eyelids, prevents excessive tear evaporation and maintains tear film stability [3].

 Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) refers to the obstruction or abnormality of the meibomian glands, resulting in reduced or altered oil secretion. When these glands fail to function properly, the lipid layer becomes deficient, leading to increased tear evaporation and evaporative dry eye. MGD is now recognized as the leading cause of evaporative dry eye disease worldwide [4].

 In recent years, there has been growing concern about the practice of self-diagnosis of dry eye disease. With the widespread availability of health-related information on digital platforms, many individuals experiencing mild eye discomfort tend to self-diagnose and initiate self-medication using over-the-counter lubricating eye drops without professional medical consultation [5]. While this approach may provide temporary relief, it often fails to address the underlying cause, particularly when meibomian gland dysfunction is present.

 A systematic review conducted in the United States reported that approximately 8.1% of adults suffer from dry eye disease, while 21.2% were found to have meibomian gland dysfunction [6]. This discrepancy highlights the importance of accurate diagnostic assessment, as many individuals with MGD may not meet the clinical criteria for DED despite experiencing significant symptoms.

The relationship between patient-reported symptoms and objective clinical findings in dry eye disease is complex. Several studies have demonstrated that symptoms reported by patients often do not correlate well with clinical signs [7]. Some patients experience severe symptoms with minimal clinical findings, while others have significant clinical signs but report few symptoms. This symptom-sign discordance poses a substantial challenge for clinicians in accurately diagnosing and managing dry eye disease.

The inconsistency between patient self-diagnosis and clinical findings is particularly relevant when considering meibomian gland dysfunction. MGD requires a thorough clinical assessment of glandular structure, meibum quality, and gland expressibility using slit-lamp biomicroscopy. Relying entirely on patient self-diagnosis may result in incorrect identification of the tear film layer involved, leading to ineffective treatment strategies [8].

In resource-constrained settings or busy clinical environments, there is a tendency to accept patient-reported dryness without performing a comprehensive meibomian gland evaluation. This practice may lead to mismanagement, prolonged patient suffering, and unnecessary therapeutic interventions. Therefore, understanding the accuracy of patient self-diagnosis compared to clinical assessment is essential for developing evidence-based guidelines for dry eye management.

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate how accurately patients can self-diagnose dry eye in comparison with clinical assessment of meibomian gland dysfunction using slit-lamp examination. The secondary aims were to examine the relationship between patient-reported symptoms and objective clinical findings, and to identify factors associated with discordance between self-diagnosis and clinical diagnosis.

Study Design and Setting

This analytical cross-sectional study was conducted at independent eye clinics in Rawalpindi and Lahore, Pakistan, over a period of four months. The study received approval from the institutional review board, and all procedures followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Study Population and Sample Size

The study population consisted of patients aged 15 years or older who visited the outpatient department for eye examination. A total of 250 participants were enrolled using non-probability convenient sampling technique. The sample size was determined based on the expected prevalence of dry eye symptoms in the population.

Inclusion Criteria

•         Patients aged 15 years or older

•         Both male and female participants

•         Patients willing to provide informed consent

•         Patients with or without prior dry eye diagnosis

Exclusion Criteria

•         History of any ocular surgery

•         Known systemic diseases affecting the eye (except diabetes and autoimmune disorders if stable)

•         Patients currently undergoing active ocular treatment

•         Patients unable to complete the questionnaire

Data Collection

A structured questionnaire was used to collect data in two sections:

Section A

Patient Self-Assessment

•         Demographic information (age, gender, occupation)

•         Average daily screen exposure

•         Self-perception of having dry eye disease

•         Ocular symptoms (dryness, burning, foreign body sensation, redness, excessive tearing, blurred vision)

•         Symptom frequency and severity

•         Environmental factors (wind or air-conditioned environments)

•         Risk factors (contact lens use, topical medications, systemic diseases) 

Section B

Clinical Examination (Examiner Assessment)

•         Meibomian gland expressibility (normal, reduced, or obstructed)

•         Quality of meibomian gland secretion (clear, cloudy, thickened, or toothpaste-like)

•         Clinical examination was performed using a slit-lamp biomicroscope following standard protocols. The lower eyelid was everted, and gentle digital pressure was applied to assess gland expressibility and secretion quality.Study Variables

Independent Variables

•         Patient-reported symptoms

•         Daily screen time

•         Demographic characteristicsDependent Variables

•         Clinical diagnosis of meibomian gland dysfunction

•         Quality of meibomian gland secretion

 Statistical Analysis

Data were entered and analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.0.1. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables, including frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Chi-square tests were used to examine associations between categorical variables. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

 Ethical Considerations

Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. No identifying information was included in the final dataset.

This study evaluated the accuracy of patient self-diagnosis of dry eye disease compared to clinical meibomian gland assessment in a Pakistani population. The findings reveal a substantial gap between patient-reported symptoms and objective clinical findings, highlighting the importance of comprehensive ocular examination in all patients presenting with dry eye complaints.

 Prevalence of Dry Eye Symptoms

The high prevalence of dry eye symptoms in this study population is consistent with global literature. Over 60% of participants reported burning, irritation, or foreign body sensation at least sometimes, and more than half (52.8%) reported daily screen time exceeding 4 hours. These findings align with recent studies documenting the increasing burden of dry eye disease among young adults in developing countries, particularly those with high digital screen exposure [9].

 The predominance of female participants (67.2%) in our study reflects the well-established gender disparity in dry eye disease. Hormonal factors, particularly the role of androgens in meibomian gland function, contribute to higher dry eye prevalence among women [10]. Additionally, women may be more likely to seek healthcare for ocular symptoms, introducing potential selection bias.

  Discordance Between Symptoms and Clinical Findings

A key finding of this study is that patient self-diagnosis of dry eye does not reliably predict clinical meibomian gland dysfunction. While a large proportion of participants reported classic dry eye symptoms, clinical examination revealed that not all symptomatic patients had evidence of MGD. Conversely, some patients with minimal symptoms demonstrated significant meibomian gland abnormalities on slit-lamp examination.

 This symptom-sign discordance has been well documented in the literature. A population-based study in northeastern China found that 42.44% of participants showed inconsistency between reported symptoms and clinical findings [11]. Similarly, a multicentre study across Europe and the United States reported weak correlations (r² ≤ 0.17) between dry eye symptoms and clinical signs, with only 57% of patients with clinical evidence of dry eye reporting symptoms [12].

 Several factors may explain this discordance. First, patients may adapt to chronic symptoms and underreport their severity. Second, symptoms may be influenced by psychological factors, including anxiety and depression, which are more prevalent in dry eye patients. Third, different types of dry eye (aqueous deficient vs. evaporative) may produce different symptom profiles despite similar clinical findings.

  Role of Prolonged Screen Time

The finding that 52.8% of participants spent more than 4 hours daily on screens is concerning. Prolonged screen exposure reduces blink rate from the normal 20-22 blinks per minute to 10-12 blinks per minute, leading to inadequate meibum distribution across the ocular surface [13]. This reduction in blink frequency, combined with incomplete blinks common during digital device use, contributes to tear film instability and evaporative dry eye.

Our clinical observations during slit-lamp examination revealed that many patients with high screen time exhibited signs of meibomian gland dysfunction, including gland obstruction, thickened meibum, and lid margin abnormalities. These findings support the growing body of evidence linking digital device use to meibomian gland pathology [14].

 Gender Differences in Symptom Reporting

The statistically significant association between gender and foreign body sensation (p<0.05) warrants discussion. Female participants reported higher frequencies of sand/dust sensation across all categories compared to males. This finding is consistent with previous research demonstrating that women report more severe dry eye symptoms despite similar or even less severe clinical signs compared to men [15].

 Possible explanations for this gender difference include hormonal influences on corneal nerve sensitivity, differences in pain perception, and higher prevalence of autoimmune conditions (e.g., Sjögren's syndrome) in women. Clinicians should be aware that female patients may report more severe symptoms even when clinical findings appear mild, and treatment decisions should consider both symptom burden and objective findings.

 Clinical Implications

The findings of this study have important implications for clinical practice. First, patient self-diagnosis of dry eye should not be accepted as definitive without clinical correlation. Second, all patients presenting with dry eye symptoms should undergo slit-lamp examination with specific attention to meibomian gland assessment, including evaluation of gland expressibility and meibum quality. Third, the high prevalence of prolonged screen time in symptomatic patients suggests that lifestyle modification should be an integral component of dry eye management.

The clinical examination protocol used in this study—including lid eversion, digital expression of meibomian glands, and assessment of secretion quality—is simple, cost-effective, and can be performed in any ophthalmic setting. Given that 56.8% of participants never experienced oily or greasy eyelids, patients cannot reliably identify meibomian gland dysfunction based on symptoms alone

Comparison with Previous Studies

Table 4: Comparison of Key Findings with Previous Studies

Our findings are consistent with these previous studies while providing new data specific to the Pakistani population, where limited research has been conducted on dry eye disease and meibomian gland dysfunction.

1.      Sheppard JD, Nichols KK. Dry Eye Disease Associated with Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Focus on Tear Film Characteristics and the Therapeutic Landscape. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12(3):1397-1418.

2.      Lin H, Yiu SC. Dry eye disease: A review of diagnostic approaches and treatments. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2014;28(3):173-181.

3.      Aragona P, et al. Dry Eye Disease: From Causes to Patient Care and Clinical Collaboration—A Narrative Review. Ophthalmol Ther. 2025;14(7):1411-1428.

4.      Narang P, Donthineni PR, D'Souza S, Basu S. Evaporative dry eye disease due to meibomian gland dysfunction: Preferred practice pattern guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023;71(4):1348-1356.

5.      Raja A, et al. Self-diagnosis and self-medication based on internet search among Non-Medical University students of Karachi. Ann Med Surg. 2024;86(11):6507-6513.

6.      McCann P, et al. Prevalence and Incidence of Dry Eye and Meibomian Gland Dysfunction in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022;140(12):1181.

7.      Bartlett J, Keith M, Sudharshan L, Snedecor S. Associations between signs and symptoms of dry eye disease: a systematic review. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015:1719.

8.      Messmer EM. The Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Dry Eye Disease. Dtsch Ärztebl Int. 2015.

9.      Tong L, et al. Assessment and Management of Dry Eye Disease and Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Providing a Singapore Framework. Asia-Pac J Ophthalmol. 2021;10(6):530-541.

10.   Bulat N, Cuşnir VV, Procopciuc V, Cușnir V, Cușnir NV. Diagnosing the Dry Eye Syndrome in modern society and among patients with glaucoma: a prospective study. Romanian J Ophthalmol. 2020;64(1):35-42.

11.   Hua R, Yao K, Hu Y, Chen L. Discrepancy between subjectively reported symptoms and objectively measured clinical findings in dry eye: a population based analysis. BMJ Open. 2014;4(8):e005296.

12.   Kyei S, Dzasimatu SK, Asiedu K, Ayerakwah PA. Association between dry eye symptoms and signs. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2018;30(4):321-325.

13.   Chalmers RL, et al. The Agreement Between Self-Assessment and Clinician Assessment of Dry Eye Severity. Cornea. 2005;24(7):804-810.

14.   Locatelli EVT, Huang JJ, Mangwani-Mordani S, Tovar Vetencourt AA, Galor A. Individuals with Diabetes Mellitus Have a Dry Eye Phenotype Driven by Low Symptom Burden and Anatomic Abnormalities. J Clin Med. 2023;12(20):6535.

15.   [Ghaffar F, Furtado NM, Ali I, Burns C. Diagnostic Decision-Making Variability Between Novice and Expert Optometrists for Glaucoma: Comparative Analysis to Inform AI System Design. JMIR Med Inform. 2025;13:e63109.