ReviewCureus2026
Prevalence of Dry Eye Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disorder of the ocular surface increasingly recognised as a complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). Prevalence estimates in DM patients vary widely due to differences in diagnostic methods and populations. This systematic review aimed to synthesise contemporary evidence on DED prevalence in DM patients and explore factors influencing variability, particularly diagnostic approaches. A systematic search was conducted in four databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) for studies published between January 2015 and June 2025. Eligible studies included those reporting the prevalence of DED in patients with type 1 or type 2 DM, using clinical assessments or validated diagnostic methods. Only peer-reviewed, full-text studies published in English were included. Following an initial screening of 2053 records, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Prevalence ranged from 6.6% to 72.3%. Rates were lowest in large administrative studies using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes (6.6-14.4%), intermediate in questionnaire-only assessments (34.8-51.7%), and highest in multimodal clinical evaluations combining symptoms with objective tests (17.5-72.3%). Where non-diabetic controls were included, DED prevalence was consistently higher in DM patients. DED is highly prevalent in DM patients, with estimates strongly influenced by diagnostic sensitivity. This suggests underdiagnosis where administrative data or symptoms alone are used. Routine screening with sensitive multimodal tools is recommended in DM care. Future research should adopt standardised diagnostics and broader geographic representation to enable quantitative synthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.