Dry eye disease is characterized by tear film instability that can result in ocular surface damage. Patients with dry eye disease may experience ocular pain/discomfort and visual disturbances that may negatively impact quality of life. Increased use of digital screens for work, communication, and entertainment, especially during times of pandemic, may contribute to dry eye. Extensive cross-sectional studies have shown that digital screen use duration is associated with an increased risk of severe symptoms and clinical diagnosis of dry eye disease in adults. Smartphone use duration has also been found to be greater in school-age children with dry eye disease than in those without dry eye disease. A commonly accepted hypothesis for the relationship between digital screen use and dry eye disease is that digital screen use changes blinking dynamics, leading to ocular dryness. This review describes evidence that digital screen use is associated with dry eye disease, that digital device use alters blinking dynamics, and that dry eye affects mental health and work productivity in digital screen users. Helpful prevention and management strategies for dry eye disease exist for those who use digital screens.

Purpose To evaluate the prevalence of Demodex blepharitis by its pathognomonic sign, collarettes, in patients presenting for any reason to eye care clinics in the United States. Patients and Methods In this retrospective study by 7 investigators at 6 eye care clinics, case records of consecutive patients who underwent a slit-lamp examination, regardless of chief complaint, were reviewed for Demodex blepharitis, as identified by the presence of collarettes. Patient characteristics, including age, gender, race, relevant ocular and systemic diagnoses, ocular medications, lid hygiene practices and contact lens wear, were also recorded. Results Of 1032 patients (mean age: 60.2 ± 17.8 years), 57.7% had Demodex blepharitis. While the prevalence of Demodex blepharitis in patients with dry eye disease (DED) (58.9%) and cataract (55.7%) was similar to the overall prevalence of Demodex blepharitis, it was higher in patients with blepharitis (69.1%) and glaucoma (64.8%). Among patients with collarettes, 44.0% had never been diagnosed with blepharitis. Among those on anti-inflammatory DED treatment, 60.0% had Demodex blepharitis. Demodex blepharitis prevalence was significantly higher among those using topical tea tree oil versus those who were not (74.5% versus 56.7% p = 0.014); prevalence was comparable among those using/not using lid wipes (56.9% versus 55.5%). Conclusion Demodex blepharitis, based on the pathognomonic finding of collarettes, is common and likely underdiagnosed among patients seeking eye care. These collarettes are still found in patients using over-the-counter treatments for blepharitis. The present study highlights the importance of screening patients for collarettes and Demodex blepharitis as part of every slit-lamp examination.

Following a clinical sequence helps identify Demodex, the underdiagnosed, undertreated, and underappreciated ocular surface disease.