Transcultural validation of the 5-Item Dry Eye Questionnaire for the Mexican population
- 127 Downloads
To translate and validate a Spanish-language adaptation of the 5-Item Dry Eye Questionnaire for the Mexican population.
Based on the MAPI Institute guidelines, the linguistic validation procedures consisted of four steps. Every step was reviewed by the committee. The translated validated questionnaire was applied to 25 Mexican subjects. The questionnaires were completed by the same subjects at three time points, 8 h apart on the same day and then 3 days later. Sensitivity and specificity of the DEQ-5 to predict DE signs was subsequently estimated in 200 patients see in the Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera ophthalmology clinic.
During the forward translation step analysis, the committee decided to change the severity scale, as the words “constantly” and “frequently” are synonymous in Spanish, so it was modified by changing “constantly” to “always” for better understanding. Overall, the intra-test intra-class correlation coefficient from tests administered on the same day was 0.9 (95% CI 0.77–0.95, p = 0.0005). The intra-test intra-class correlation coefficient from tests administered 3 days apart was 0.9 (95% CI 0.88–0.97, p = 0.0005). When applying the questionnaire to 200 patients seen in an eye clinic, we found a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 31% for a DEQ-5 score of ≥ 6, against 2 or more positive signs of dry eye.
MAPI methodology proved to be a reliable strategy for the transcultural Dry Eye Questionnaire for translation from English to Spanish for the Mexican population.
KeywordsDry eye questionnaire Ocular surface disease Dry eye disease
This study was supported by the Pan-American association of Ophthalmology (PAAO) and Retina Research Foundation (JD Martinez), and the study was also supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Clinical Sciences Research EPID-006-15S (Dr. Galor), R01EY026174 (Dr. Galor), NIH Center Core Grant P30EY014801, and Research to Prevent Blindness Unrestricted Grant.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
No author has a conflict of interest to report.
- 3.Uchino M, Nishiwaki Y, Michikawa T, Shirakawa K, Kuwahara E, Yamada M, Dogru M, Schaumberg DA, Kawakita T, Takebayashi T, Tsubota K (2011) Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease in Japan: Koumi study. Ophthalmology 118(12):2361–2367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Lekhanont K, Rojanaporn D, Chuck RS, Vongthongsri A (2006) Prevalence of dry eye in Bangkok, Thailand. Cornea 25(10):1162–1167. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ico.0000244875.92879.1a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Martinez JD, Galor A, Ramos-Betancourt N, Lisker-Cervantes A, Beltran F, Ozorno-Zarate J, Sanchez-Huerta V, Torres-Vera MA, Hernandez-Quintela E (2016) Frequency and risk factors associated with dry eye in patients attending a tertiary care ophthalmology center in Mexico City. Clin Ophthalmol 10:1335–1342. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S106451 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Acquadro C (2012) Linguistic validation manual for health outcome assessments. In: Institute LM (ed) pp 33–88Google Scholar
- 19.Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R, Djalilian A, Dogru M, Dumbleton K, Gupta PK, Karpecki P, Lazreg S, Pult H, Sullivan BD, Tomlinson A, Tong L, Villani E, Yoon KC, Jones L, Craig JP (2017) TFOS DEWS II diagnostic methodology report. Ocul Surf 15(3):539–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.The epidemiology of dry eye disease: report of the Epidemiology Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf 5 (2):93–107Google Scholar