Indian Journal of Ophthalmology

: 2020  |  Volume : 68  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 1499--1500

Dry eye disease in India

Samrat Chatterjee, Deepshikha Agrawal, Arpit Sharma 
 Cornea and Anterior Segment Services, MGM Eye Institute, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Samrat Chatterjee
Cornea and Anterior Segment Services, MGM Eye Institute, 5th Mile, Vidhan Sabha Road, PO Mandhar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 493 111

How to cite this article:
Chatterjee S, Agrawal D, Sharma A. Dry eye disease in India.Indian J Ophthalmol 2020;68:1499-1500

How to cite this URL:
Chatterjee S, Agrawal D, Sharma A. Dry eye disease in India. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 28 ];68:1499-1500
Available from:

Full Text

Dear Editor:

Recently a study from north India reported 32% prevalence of dry eye disease (DED), and based on symptoms 81% were severe DED.[1] Another study from south India reported 1.46% DED incidence.[2] The authors predicted that within the end of next decade, large number of urban and rural populations would have DED.

We recently published our findings of meibomian gland dysfunction.[3] Here we present the unpublished findings of the study related to DED as a secondary analysis.

The results are summarized in [Table 1] and [Table 2]. The crude and age-adjusted prevalence rate of DE was 17.7% and 19.0% (95%CI: 15.7–22.1%), respectively. The crude and age-adjusted prevalence rate in males was 15.2% and 18.4% (95%CI: 14.1–22.8%), and in females was 20.5% and 23.3% (95%CI: 18.2–28.4%), respectively.{Table 1}{Table 2}

Our results of lower prevalence offer a different perspective. Some other Indian studies have also reported lesser prevalence rates—18.4%[4] and 15.4%,[5] which are more aligned to ours, and less alarming.

All the above studies [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] are hospital-based, and generalization of results should be done cautiously. Studies [4],[5] reporting low DE prevalence like ours, are from less urban areas than those [1],[2] reporting higher prevalence. The degree of urbanization influences lifestyle, and exposure to environmental risk factors which may explain the differences. Ocular symptoms were less reported in our study. It is possible that the OSDI questionnaire that we used, and which has been designed specifically for a western population, was less suitable in our setting. Our diagnosis criteria was more stringent than others,[1] which may be a reason for the lower prevalence rate. It is also possible that DE is less uniformly distributed across India, with pockets of higher prevalence. Therefore, any extrapolation [2] to whole of India must be done with circumspection. A multi-centric study across India may provide a more representative magnitude of DED.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


1Tityal JS, Falera C, Kaur M, Sharma M, Sharma N. Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease in north India: Ocular surface disease index-based cross-sectional hospital study. Indian J Ophthalmol 2018;66:207-11.
2Rao Donthineni P, Kammari P, Shanbag SS, Singh VS, Das VA, Basu S. Incidence, demographics, types and risk factors of dry eye disease in India: Electronic medical records driven big data analytics report I. Ocul Surf 2019;17:250-6.
3Chatterjee S, Agrawal D, Sharma A. Meibomian gland dysfunction in a hospital-based population in central India. Cornea 2019. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002217.
4Sahai A, Malik P. Dry eye: Prevalence and attributable risk factors in a hospital-based population. Indian J Ophthalmol 2005;53:87-91.
5Rege A, Kulkarni V, Puthran N, Khandgave T. A clinical study on subtype-based prevalence of dry eye. J Clin Diagn Res 2013;7:2207-10.