Blue-light filtering spectacle lenses for visual performance, sleep, and macular health in adults.

BACKGROUND: 'Blue-light filtering', or 'blue-light blocking', spectacle lenses filter ultraviolet radiation and varying portions of short-wavelength visible light from reaching the eye. Various blue-light filtering lenses are commercially available. Some claims exist that they can improve visual performance with digital device use, provide retinal protection, and promote sleep quality. We investigated clinical trial evidence for these suggested effects, and considered any potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of blue-light filtering lenses compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses, for improving visual performance, providing macular protection, and improving sleep quality in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; containing the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, with no date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adult participants, where blue-light filtering spectacle lenses were compared with non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were the change in visual fatigue score and critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF), as continuous outcomes, between baseline and one month of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, discomfort glare, proportion of eyes with a pathological macular finding, colour discrimination, proportion of participants with reduced daytime alertness, serum melatonin levels, subjective sleep quality, and patient satisfaction with their visual performance. We evaluated findings related to ocular and systemic adverse effects. We followed standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 (RoB 1) tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs, with sample sizes ranging from five to 156 participants, and intervention follow-up periods from less than one day to five weeks. About half of included trials used a parallel-arm design; the rest adopted a cross-over design. A variety of participant characteristics was represented across the studies, ranging from healthy adults to individuals with mental health and sleep disorders. None of the studies had a low risk of bias in all seven Cochrane RoB 1 domains. We judged 65% of studies to have a high risk of bias due to outcome assessors not being masked (detection bias) and 59% to be at high risk of bias of performance bias as participants and personnel were not masked. Thirty-five per cent of studies were pre-registered on a trial registry. We did not perform meta-analyses for any of the outcome measures, due to lack of available quantitative data, heterogenous study populations, and differences in intervention follow-up periods. There may be no difference in subjective visual fatigue scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, at less than one week of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One RCT reported no difference between intervention arms (mean difference (MD) 9.76 units (indicating worse symptoms), 95% confidence interval (CI) -33.95 to 53.47; 120 participants). Further, two studies (46 participants, combined) that measured visual fatigue scores reported no significant difference between intervention arms. There may be little to no difference in CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, measured at less than one day of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One study reported no significant difference between intervention arms (MD - 1.13 Hz lower (indicating poorer performance), 95% CI - 3.00 to 0.74; 120 participants). Another study reported a less negative change in CFF (indicating less visual fatigue) with high- compared to low-blue-light filtering and no blue-light filtering lenses. Compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, there is probably little or no effect with blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance (BCVA) (MD 0.00 logMAR units, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 1 study, 156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and unknown effects on daytime alertness (2 RCTs, 42 participants; very low-certainty evidence); uncertainty in these effects was due to lack of available data and the small number of studies reporting these outcomes. We do not know if blue-light filtering spectacle lenses are equivalent or superior to non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses with respect to sleep quality (very low-certainty evidence). Inconsistent findings were evident across six RCTs (148 participants); three studies reported a significant improvement in sleep scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, and the other three studies reported no significant difference between intervention arms. We noted differences in the populations across studies and a lack of quantitative data. Device-related adverse effects were not consistently reported (9 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reported on adverse events related to study interventions; three studies described the occurrence of such events. Reported adverse events related to blue-light filtering lenses were infrequent, but included increased depressive symptoms, headache, discomfort wearing the glasses, and lower mood. Adverse events associated with non-blue-light filtering lenses were occasional hyperthymia, and discomfort wearing the spectacles. We were unable to determine whether blue-light filtering lenses affect contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels or overall patient visual satisfaction, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, as none of the studies evaluated these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that blue-light filtering spectacle lenses may not attenuate symptoms of eye strain with computer use, over a short-term follow-up period, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Further, this review found no clinically meaningful difference in changes to CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Based on the current best available evidence, there is probably little or no effect of blue-light filtering lenses on BCVA compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses. Potential effects on sleep quality were also indeterminate, with included trials reporting mixed outcomes among heterogeneous study populations. There was no evidence from RCT publications relating to the outcomes of contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction. Future high-quality randomised trials are required to define more clearly the effects of blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance, macular health and sleep, in adult populations.

Clinical audit as an educative tool for optometrists: an intervention study in age-related macular degeneration.

PURPOSE: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a major cause of vision loss. This study investigated whether performing clinical audit and receiving analytical performance feedback altered documentation of the AMD care provided by optometrists. METHODS: Australian optometrists were recruited and completed a survey about their demographics and confidence in AMD care, and a three-month audit of their practice records using an AMD audit tool (termed the pre-audit evaluation). After receiving analytical feedback, participants identified areas for improvement and re-audited their practices after three months to analyse changes in performance (termed the post-audit evaluation). Paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, as appropriate, were used to compare pre- and post-audit data. RESULTS: Twenty optometrists, most practising in Victoria, Australia, completed the study. Participants primarily worked in corporate practice and/or rural settings and had a range of optometric experience (2-40 years). At baseline, participants felt confident in their: knowledge of AMD risk factors (65%), advice to patients about these factors (55%) and management of earlier stages of AMD (55%). Each clinician completed (median [IQR]): 15 [IQR: 10-19] and 12 [IQR: 8-16] audits of unique patient records, pre- and post-audit, respectively. Post-audit, average record documentation (per optometrist) improved for asking about: AMD family history (94% to 100%, p = 0.03), smoking status (21% to 58%, p < 0.01), diet (11% to 29%, p < 0.01) and nutritional supplementation (20% to 51%, p < 0.01). For clinical examination, compliance with documenting pinhole visual acuity, performing an in-office Amsler grid (upon indication) and using optical coherence tomography improved post-audit (p < 0.05). Accuracy of severity documentation improved for earlier stages of AMD (p < 0.05). For earlier stages of AMD, documentation of counselling about modifiable risk factors significantly improved post-audit (p < 0.05). Aspects well-performed pre-audit that did not change included documenting: medical histories (100% at both time points, p = 0.06) and retinal imaging (77% at both time points, p = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Self-audit with analytical feedback improved clinical record documentation of: AMD risk factors, clinical examination, AMD severity classification and management advice. These findings support a role for audit to improve optometric clinical care of AMD, as evidenced by improved documentation of the AMD care delivered.

Knowledge, perspectives and clinical practices of Australian optometrists in relation to childhood myopia.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to investigate the understanding of Australian optometrists in relation to myopia, its natural history and associations with vision-threatening ocular disease, self-reported clinical diagnosis and management approaches for childhood myopia, engagement with adult caregivers, and utilisation of information to guide practice. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to Australian optometrists (n = 4,124). Respondents provided information about their demographics (for example, gender, age, practice location and modality), myopia knowledge, self-reported practice behaviours relating to childhood myopia, the information and evidence base used to guide their practice, and perceived extent of adult caregiver engagement in making management decisions for myopic children. RESULTS: Completed surveys were returned by 239 optometrists (six per cent completed response rate). Most respondents demonstrated knowledge of the association between high myopia and retinal breaks, retinal detachment and primary open-angle glaucoma. Optometrists used a range of techniques to diagnose childhood myopia, with a preference for non-cycloplegic refractive measures. The most common approaches to management were single-vision distance and progressive addition spectacle lenses, despite most optometrists identifying orthokeratology, low-dose (0.01%) topical atropine and soft peripheral defocus contact lenses as three potentially more effective therapeutic interventions for modifying childhood myopia progression. Almost 90 per cent of respondents considered increasing time spent outdoors to be beneficial for reducing the rate of myopia progression. The main sources of information used to guide clinical practice were continuing education conferences and events, systematic reviews, and personal experience. Respondents perceived adult caregivers to generally be involved in myopia management decisions, and considered all aspects of myopia education as important. CONCLUSION: Current optometric practices reflect the inconclusive nature of several key aspects of the evidence for childhood myopia management. Australian optometrists appear aware of emerging evidence, but are not routinely adopting measures that have not yet received regulatory approval for modulating childhood myopia progression. Clinical guidelines may be of value for assisting practitioners in making clinical decisions based upon the current, best-available research evidence.

Analysis of a Systematic Review About Blue Light-Filtering Intraocular Lenses for Retinal Protection: Understanding the Limitations of the Evidence.

Importance: Cataract surgery, with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, is the most common ocular surgical procedure worldwide. It has been suggested that IOLs that selectively attenuate short wavelength visible light (blue light-filtering IOLs) may be beneficial for macular health. Whether blue light-filtering IOLs impart retinal photoprotection is of public health relevance, particularly in the context of aging demographics and the increasing global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration. This review analyzes and interprets the key findings, including consideration of the implications for practice and future research, of a 2018 Cochrane systematic review that evaluated the efficacy and safety of blue light-filtering IOLs for providing protection to macular health and function. Observations: The Cochrane systematic review included 51 randomized controlled trials that were performed in 17 countries. The trials involved adults undergoing cataract surgery in which a blue light-filtering IOL was compared with an equivalent non-blue light-filtering IOL. Study follow-up periods ranged from 1 month to 5 years. Together, these studies considered clinical outcomes in more than 5000 eyes. There was limited ability to combine data across trials (to draw overall conclusions) because of the use of different measurement techniques for outcomes, incomplete reporting of data, and/or varied follow-up periods. We identified substantial shortcomings in the internal validity of many of the included studies, particularly regarding trial design, conduct, and reporting. We propose several avenues for improving the rigor of potential future research in the field, including developing a core set of outcome measures, the inclusion of sample size calculations, the masking of trial participants and outcome assessors, and prospective clinical trial registration. Conclusions and Relevance: Using blue light-filtering IOLs to impart benefits to the macula is currently not supported by the best available clinical research evidence, and it is important that clinicians are mindful of this evidence limitation when adopting these devices in clinical practice.

Blue-light filtering intraocular lenses (IOLs) for protecting macular health.

BACKGROUND: An intraocular lens (IOL) is a synthetic lens that is surgically implanted within the eye following removal of the crystalline lens, during cataract surgery. While all modern IOLs attenuate the transmission of ultra-violet (UV) light, some IOLs, called blue-blocking or blue-light filtering IOLs, also reduce short-wavelength visible light transmission. The rationale for blue-light filtering IOLs derives primarily from cell culture and animal studies, which suggest that short-wavelength visible light can induce retinal photoxicity. Blue-light filtering IOLs have been suggested to impart retinal protection and potentially prevent the development and progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). We sought to investigate the evidence relating to these suggested benefits of blue-light filtering IOLs, and to consider any potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of blue-light filtering IOLs compared with non-blue-light filtering IOLs, with respect to providing protection to macular health and function. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 25 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adult participants undergoing cataract extraction, where a blue-light filtering IOL was compared with an equivalent non-blue-light filtering IOL. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The prespecified primary outcome was the change in distance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), as a continuous outcome, between baseline and 12 months of follow-up. Prespecified secondary outcomes included postoperative contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, macular pigment optical density (MPOD), proportion of eyes with a pathological finding at the macula (including, but not limited to the development or progression of AMD, or both), daytime alertness, reaction time and patient satisfaction. We evaluated findings related to ocular and systemic adverse effects.Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, extracted data from eligible RCTs and judged the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We reached a consensus on any disagreements by discussion. Where appropriate, we pooled data relating to outcomes and used random-effects or fixed-effect models for the meta-analyses. We summarised the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 RCTs from 17 different countries, although most studies either did not report relevant outcomes, or provided data in a format that could not be extracted. Together, the included studies considered the outcomes of IOL implantation in over 5000 eyes. The number of participants ranged from 13 to 300, and the follow-up period ranged from one month to five years. Only two of the studies had a trial registry record and no studies referred to a published protocol. We did not judge any of the studies to have a low risk of bias in all seven domains. We judged approximately two-thirds of the studies to have a high risk of bias in domains relating to 'blinding of participants and personnel' (performance bias) and 'blinding of outcome assessment' (detection bias).We found with moderate certainty, that distance BCVA with a blue-light filtering IOL, at six to 18 months postoperatively, and measured in logMAR, was not clearly different to distance BCVA with a non-blue-light filtering IOL (mean difference (MD) -0.01 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.02, P = 0.48; 2 studies, 131 eyes).There was very low-certainty evidence relating to any potential inter-intervention difference for the proportion of eyes that developed late-stage AMD at three years of follow-up, or any stage of AMD at one year of follow-up, as data derived from one trial and two trials respectively, and there were no events in either IOL intervention group, for either outcome. There was very low-certainty evidence for the outcome for the proportion of participants who lost 15 or more letters of distance BCVA at six months of follow-up; two trials that considered a total of 63 eyes reported no events, in either IOL intervention group.There were no relevant, combinable data available for outcomes relating to the effect on contrast sensitivity at six months, the proportion of eyes with a measurable loss of colour discrimination from baseline at six months, or the proportion of participants with adverse events with a probable causal link with the study interventions after six months.We were unable to draw reliable conclusions on the relative equivalence or superiority of blue-light filtering IOLs versus non-blue-light filtering IOLs in relation to longer-term effects on macular health. We were also not able to determine with any certainty whether blue-light filtering IOLs have any significant effects on MPOD, contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, daytime alertness, reaction time or patient satisfaction, relative to non-blue-light filtering IOLs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows with moderate certainty that there is no clinically meaningful difference in short-term BCVA with the two types of IOLs. Further, based upon available data, these findings suggest that there is no clinically meaningful difference in short-term contrast sensitivity with the two interventions, although there was a low level of certainty for this outcome due to a small number of included studies and their inherent risk of bias. Based upon current, best-available research evidence, it is unclear whether blue-light filtering IOLs preserve macular health or alter risks associated with the development and progression of AMD, or both. Further research is required to fully understand the effects of blue-light filtering IOLs for providing protection to macular health and function.

What do patients think about the role of optometrists in providing advice about smoking and nutrition?

PURPOSE: Tobacco smoking and nutrition are key lifestyle factors with long-term effects on eye health. However, little is known about patients' perceptions and experiences in these areas in relation to the care received from optometrists. The main aim was to survey patients' perceptions and prior experience regarding the role of optometrists in enquiring and providing advice about tobacco smoking and nutrition. METHODS: An anonymous, paper-based survey was distributed to a convenience sample of 225 adults attending the University of Melbourne eye care clinic. Respondents provided demographic and other information (age, sex, length of time since last eye examination, country of most recent eye examination, smoking status and intake of nutritional supplements) and indicated their level of agreement (using a five-step Likert scale) with a series of statements relating to the care provided by optometrists in the areas of health, smoking and nutrition. The statements were designed to assess the perceived scope of practice of optometrists and the extent to which patients expect, and feel comfortable, discussing these issues with their optometrist. RESULTS: 220 completed surveys were returned. Most respondents (>80%) agreed that they visit their optometrist to quantify their refractive error and to examine their eye health. About two-thirds of respondents indicated that they expect their optometrist to ask about their general health, with almost half expecting their optometrist to communicate with their general medical practitioner. Approximately one-third of respondents indicated having been routinely questioned about their smoking status, diet and nutritional supplement intake by their optometrist. This was despite about half expecting their optometrist to question them about these factors and almost three out of four respondents indicating that they felt comfortable talking with their optometrist about these lifestyle behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel insight into patients' perceptions and experience with optometric practice in the areas of tobacco smoking and nutrition. The majority of respondents expected their optometrist to examine their eye health, ask them about their smoking and diet habits, and indicated feeling comfortable discussing these topics with their primary eye care provider. These findings suggest that brief advice interventions relating to tobacco use and diet are likely to be acceptable to deliver in optometry practice.

Assessing ocular bulbar redness: a comparison of methods.

PURPOSE: We consider whether quantification of ocular bulbar redness, using image processing of relative Red-channel activity (Red-value), can be applied to a clinical sample and how this approach compares to an automated bulbar redness grading technique (Oculus Keratograph 5M, R-scan). METHODS: Red-values from dry eye patients (n = 25) were determined using image processing of digital photographs over the nasal bulbar conjunctiva. Red-values were compared with subjective grades from six clinicians who graded the images using the IER scale. We considered the level of agreement between the Red-value and automated bulbar redness scores from the commercial instrument (R-scan). Scoring variability for each technique was assessed using the geometric coefficient of variation (gCoV, %). Agreement between techniques was considered with Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Red-values showed a strong linear relationship (R(2) = 0.99) to the R-scan. The Red-value had least variability (gCoV = 0.97%, 95% CI: 0.76-1.35%). The IER grade showed a linear relationship with Red-value (R(2) = 0.99), bound by a floor effect; it did not discriminate changes in redness below a threshold of 1.75 units (Red-value = 33.0%), after which it paralleled the redness returned by the R-scan. Intra-method variability for the redness returned by the R-scan (gCoV = 9.84%, 95% CI: 7.60-13.94%) and IER grades (gCoV = 7.30%, 95% CI: 1.73-10.31%) was similar (p > 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis showed the R-scan was consistently biased towards lower absolute redness scores than the IER. CONCLUSIONS: Digital imaging processing, using relative Red-channel activity, was the least variable of the three techniques. The R-scan and IER showed similar intra-observer variability. The linear relationship between R-scan and Red-value suggests that the R-scan could be derived using similar methods.

Comparing self-reported optometric dry eye clinical practices in Australia and the United Kingdom: is there scope for practice improvement?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported clinical practice behaviours of optometrists in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) with respect to the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease (DED). We also sought to examine whether the reported practices of clinicians in each region were consistent with current evidence-based recommendations for DED. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to optometrists (Australia, n = 654; UK, n = 1006). Respondents provided information about practice modality, years of optometric experience, preferred diagnostic and management strategies (stratified by DED severity) and the information/evidence base used to guide patient care. RESULTS: A total of 317 completed surveys were received (response rates, Australia: 21%, UK: 17%). Optometrists in both regions demonstrated similarly strong knowledge of tear film assessment and adopted both subjective and objective techniques to diagnose DED. Patient symptoms were considered the most important, valuable and commonly performed assessment by both Australian and UK respondents. UK practitioners valued and utilised conjunctival signs and tear meniscus height assessments more than Australian optometrists (p < 0.05), who placed relatively greater emphasis on sodium fluorescein tear break-up time to diagnose DED (p < 0.05). Clinicians in both locations tailored DED therapy to severity. While practitioners in both regions predominantly managed mild DED with eyelid hygiene and tear supplementation, Australian optometrists indicated prescribing topical corticosteroid therapy significantly more often than UK practitioners for moderate (14% vs 6%) and severe (52% vs 8%) disease (p < 0.05). The major source of information used to guide practitioners' dry eye management practices was continuing education conferences. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights a range of parallels and divergences in dry eye clinical practice between Australian and UK optometrists. Our data identify both areas of strength in the adoption of evidence-based practice, as well as some potential to improve international translation of dry eye research evidence into practice.

A Pragmatic Approach to Dry Eye Diagnosis: Evidence into Practice.

Dry eye disease (DED) is a common, multifactorial disease of the tears and anterior ocular surface. The clinical diagnosis of DED is complex, requiring the consideration of both patient symptoms and signs, which can be apparently contradictory. Misdiagnosis can lead to suboptimal clinical management. Studies of the practice behaviors of optometrists suggest that there is the potential to improve the translation of research evidence relating to the diagnosis of DED into primary ophthalmic care. This review describes an evidence-based, pragmatic approach to the contemporary clinical diagnosis of DED, as a means for guiding best practice for the care of dry eye patients.

A Pragmatic Approach to the Management of Dry Eye Disease: Evidence into Practice.

Dry eye disease (DED) is a highly prevalent chronic ocular disorder that can lead to significant discomfort and visual disturbance. It is a potentially debilitating condition that can have significant negative impact on quality of life. A diverse range of management options exists for DED, including tear supplement products, anti-inflammatory agents, immunomodulators, punctal occlusive devices, and environmental modifiers. Although the availability of a variety of treatment approaches provides clinical flexibility and can enable individualized care, it can also complicate clinical management decisions and lead to variability in the nature of the clinical care provided to patients. By considering two dry eye case scenarios, this review evaluates the currently available evidence relating to DED therapy to describe a pragmatic clinical approach to best-practice management of dry eye patients.

The personal nutrition-related attitudes and behaviors of Australian optometrists: is there evidence for an evidence-based approach?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the personal nutrition-related attitudes and behaviors of Australian optometrists and, in particular, their understanding of the evidence relating to the merit of specific dietary supplements, as applicable to their own health. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to optometrists registered in Australia (N = 4242). Respondents anonymously provided information regarding their demographic characteristics (age, sex, practice location and modality), diet and lifestyle behaviors (assessment of self-perceived diet quality, smoking status), and nutritional supplement intake (including the rationale for consumption). RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 283 practitioners. Although most respondents considered themselves to eat a healthy, balanced diet, approximately 75% indicated taking nutritional supplements in the preceding year. The four most common supplements were fish oil/ω-3 (62%), multivitamins (54%), vitamin C (30%), and vitamin D (29%). In addition to vitamin D, which was typically recommended by a general medical practitioner for an established deficiency, the other three supplement categories were consumed on the basis of the respondents' self-assessment and decision. Analyses of the motivations for taking these supplements highlighted a significant misunderstanding of the evidence; furthermore, these practitioners appeared to base their personal behaviors on this misinterpretation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate scope for optometrists to enhance their critical thinking and/or understanding of the available evidence relating to the merit, or otherwise, of nutritional supplementation in managing their own health, and more broadly, improving their understanding of what a healthy diet is and its role in eye health.

An evidence-based analysis of Australian optometrists' dry eye practices.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to investigate the clinical practices of Australian optometrists as related to the diagnosis, quantification, and management of dry eye and to assess whether these are consistent with research evidence and current guidelines. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to registered optometrists (n = 654). Respondents provided information regarding their preferred diagnostic procedures and management strategies for dry eye, practice modality, year of commencing practice, and whether they possessed an interest in dry eye. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 144) used multiple procedures for diagnosis. Recording patient symptoms ranked as the most important, most valuable, and most commonly used technique. The main objective tests were fluorescein-assisted tear breakup time, corneal fluorescein staining, and meibomian gland evaluation. Optometrists with an interest in dry eye more frequently used lissamine green, phenol red test, interference fringes, and tear osmolarity than nonspecialist practitioners. Dry eye treatment varied with severity. The mainstay of therapy was nonpreserved lubricants and eyelid hygiene; more practitioners recommended topical corticosteroids, systemic omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and increased dietary intake of omega-3 fatty acids for moderate and severe disease, respectively. The primary sources of information used to guide practitioners' management were derived from continuing education conferences. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that although Australian optometrists use subjective and objective diagnostic tests and stratify treatment based on dry eye severity, there is a lack of uniformity regarding diagnostic testing, infrequent use of standardized grading scales, and significant variability in clinical care. These findings highlight the potential to improve the translation of dry eye research evidence and evidence-based guidelines into Australian optometric practice.