Reply

Abstract

We congratulate Oydanich M et al for their article, "Assessing the Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Dry Eye Disease". 1 The title mentions "Dry Eye Disease," and the search keyword was just "dry eyes". This can lead to some disparity in the search results. 2 Ideally, the search is performed using a clearedcache web browser in incognito mode with all available updates installed. The list of top 20 websites can be furnished as a Supplementary Table for the benefit of the readers. The mandatory "gold standard" clinical information that was sought by the evaluators should be enlisted in the inclusion criteria. Some websites also have video content and have attached vlogs, were those excluded? Was the presence or absence of chatbots in the webpages considered?The modified DISCERN instrument is a more suitable tool than the original version of the DISCERN instrument for evaluating online resources because the DISCERN tool does not examine the scientific correctness of the information provided. DISCERN also does not check whether the information provided is in agreement with the current valid resources. 3 Dry eye disease as we understand encompasses a wide variety of etiologies with specific diagnosis and a specific line of management to cater to the concerned cause. A good-quality reading material would not just sensitize the consumers to a more informed selection of available treatment but would also prompt them to take a timely ophthalmic checkup.