Skip to main content
HsiaoEye
HsiaoEye
Dr. Min-Chien Hsiao · Ophthalmology Notes
You are reading the English-mode interface. Some article body content is currently Chinese-only; full translation is in progress. Switch to Chinese
📑 New paper digest · Matar et al. 2026 · Am J Ophthalmol · DREAM Study
Latest Research · Dry Eye · Symptom-Sign Discordance

Why Do My Dry-Eye Symptoms Not Match the Exam?
2026 DREAM Study: Symptom-Sign Discordance in 535 Patients

A February 2026 secondary analysis of the DREAM trial published in American Journal of Ophthalmology (Matar et al., 535 moderate-to-severe dry-eye patients across 27 US sites) applied 3 distinct analytical frameworks to symptom-sign discordance. Using the rank-based method, 77% of patients showed discordance: 37.8% symptom-dominant (symptoms worse than signs), 39.3% sign-dominant (signs worse than symptoms), only 23.0% concordant. Self-reported ocular discomfort correlated 0.47 with symptom scores but ≤ 0.12 with every clinical sign (TBUT, Schirmer, corneal staining, meibomian) — validating the common patient complaint "I feel terrible but the exam looks fine" as a real, widespread phenomenon, potentially linked to neurosensory amplification. This article walks through the 3 methods, the 4 phenotypes, who falls into each, Taiwan NHI coverage rules for artificial tears and topical cyclosporine, and the study's limitations and conflicts of interest.

29 min readLast updated · 2026-11-05Dr. Hsiao →
One author discloses consulting/speaker/research relationships with 12+ ophthalmology pharma companies (per the paper's financial disclosures). This article presents the paper's framework for awareness; it is not current clinical standard of care. TFOS DEWS III and other international guidelines have not adopted this 3-method classification yet. Taiwan NHI coverage rules update over time; this article reflects the Taiwan NHI drug reimbursement rules updated 22 October 2026 (ROC 115-10-22) — confirm latest at the NHIA portal.
In this article· 16 sectionsClick to collapse
  1. 11. Common clinic scenarios
  2. 22. Bottom line: what you really need to know
  3. 33. Common patient Q&As
  4. 44. What is symptom-sign discordance?
  5. 55. How was the study conducted?
  6. 66. Finding 1: cross-sectional — 77% are discordant
  7. 77. Finding 2: discomfort barely correlates with the exam
  8. 88. Finding 3: temporal — 46% divergent trajectories over 9 months
  9. 99. Who falls into which phenotype?
  10. 1010. Clinical meaning — why this matters
  11. 1111. Taiwan NHI dry-eye coverage (updated 22 October 2026)
  12. 1212. Limitations and caveats
  13. 1313. Common myths
  14. 1414. Advanced: for readers who want more depth
  15. 1515. Summary: what you can do
  16. 16References
Enlarge diagram

Scroll horizontally and vertically to read the diagram. Close Enlarge diagram to restore its original size.

乾眼症「症狀-徵象不一致」四象限分類圖 Diagram: 乾眼症「症狀-徵象不一致」四象限分類圖 Dry Eye: 4 Quadrants of Symptom vs Sign DREAM Study 535 patients · rank-based classification Objective signs (clinician exam) → ← Subjective symptoms (OSDI) Symptom-dominant 37.8% 「Feels terrible」 「Exam looks OK」 • Younger patients • ↑ Self-reported discomfort • Hypothesis: neuro-sensitization Concordant-Severe 「Symptoms severe」 「Exam also severe」 • Classic DED • Concordant total 23% Concordant-Mild 「Not bothered」 「Exam normal」 • Usually not classified as DED • Sparse in DREAM sample Sign-dominant 39.3% 「Feels fine」 「Doctor says severe」 • Sjögren's syndrome • Older patients • Hypothesis: corneal desens. * 77% fall off-diagonal in discordant quadrants — this is the majority, not the exception
DREAM cohort 535 patients — 4-quadrant classification of dry-eye symptom-sign discordance. X-axis: severity of clinician-measured signs (TBUT, Schirmer, staining composite). Y-axis: patient-reported symptoms (OSDI). The diagonal is sparsely populated — only 23% of patients had concordant symptoms and signs; 37.8% were symptom-dominant (top-left), 39.3% sign-dominant (bottom-right). Together 77% live off-diagonal — meaning relying on EITHER symptoms or signs alone misclassifies more than three quarters of patients. Conceptual adaptation of Matar et al. 2026 (Am J Ophthalmol): category counts from the Results, Figure 1 (histogram of discordance scores) and Table 2. The paper uses 3 categories (symptom-dominant, sign-dominant, concordant); splitting concordant into severe and mild quadrants is this article's illustration.
Enlarge diagram

Scroll horizontally and vertically to read the diagram. Close Enlarge diagram to restore its original size.

主觀「不舒服」與症狀、與各臨床徵象的相關係數 Diagram: 主觀「不舒服」與症狀、與各臨床徵象的相關係數 Discomfort vs Clinical Measures — Correlation Spearman r · n=534 · Source: Matar 2026 Table 3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 ←Moderate ←Weak ←Negligible 0.47 OSDI (total) 0.23 OSDI vision 0.12 Corneal staining 0.04 Conj. staining −0.05 TBUT −0.10 Schirmer 0.02 MG Subjective symptoms Objective signs
Correlation of self-reported ocular discomfort with various measures (Spearman r; closer to 1 = stronger). Left blue bars (subjective symptoms): discomfort ↔ OSDI 0.47 — expected, both subjective. Right brown bars (objective signs): corneal staining 0.12, conjunctival staining 0.04, TBUT −0.05, Schirmer −0.10, meibomian gland 0.02 — all ≤ 0.12, effectively no correlation. Clinical takeaway: when a patient says "my eyes feel terrible", the ophthalmic exam has very limited power to predict "how terrible" — not because exams are inaccurate, but because subjective distress and objective ocular-surface damage are partly independent phenomena, potentially driven by neurosensory amplification and central pain processing.

1. Common clinic scenarios

'Doctor, my eyes really feel awful — dry, stinging, sometimes like there's sand. I've been to two ophthalmologists, both said my tear volume and cornea looked fine, just use artificial tears. But this is miserable every day. Am I just too sensitive?'

'Doctor, my mom is 70, she says her eyes feel fine. But check-ups have called her dry eye severe and suspected Sjögren's. She figures if it doesn't hurt or itch, why treat it?'

These two scenarios sound opposite, but they highlight one of the trickiest problems in dry-eye care: what the patient FEELS rarely matches what the doctor SEES on exam. For doctors, decision-making gets harder (which side do I trust?). For patients, it's deeply frustrating — 'I feel terrible and the doctor says nothing's wrong' or 'I feel fine but they say I'm severe.'

A February 2026 secondary analysis of the DREAM trial in American Journal of Ophthalmology (Matar et al.) put numbers on this. Across 535 moderate-to-severe dry-eye patients, the rank-based method showed 77% of patients had symptoms that didn't match signs. This article walks through the methods, the 4 phenotypes, who falls into each, why it matters for treatment choice, and the current Taiwan NHI coverage rules for artificial tears and Cyclosporine eye drops (Restasis).

2. Bottom line: what you really need to know

30-second takeaways

  • Symptom-sign discordance is the rule, not the exception — in 535 DREAM patients, 77% had mismatched subjective and objective severity
  • 4 phenotypes: symptom-dominant 37.8%, sign-dominant 39.3%, concordant 23.0% (the paper uses these 3 categories; this article's figure splits concordant into severe and mild)
  • 'Discomfort' barely correlates with the exam — Spearman r ≤ 0.12 against TBUT, Schirmer, corneal staining, meibomian assessment
  • Who falls where: symptom-dominant → younger, female, ↑ bodily pain; sign-dominant → Sjögren's, older; antidepressant use → more concordant
  • Clinical implication: symptom-dominant may involve neurosensory amplification — artificial tears alone may not be enough; sign-dominant needs adherent treatment and follow-up — 'no symptoms' ≠ 'no damage'
  • Taiwan NHI (rules updated 2026-10-22): first-time artificial-tear coverage needs an ophthalmologist's diagnosis plus any one of Schirmer <5 mm, TBUT <5 s, or dry-eye-related or exposure keratopathy, documented in the chart; Cyclosporine (Restasis) restricted to Level 3+ severe DED with pre-authorization
  • Evidence level: moderate — single-study secondary analysis, no healthy non-dry-eye control group, excluded post-LASIK patients, no neuro assessment, one author has substantial industry ties. Not yet adopted by TFOS DEWS III
  • Patient message: your subjective experience is real — discordance is a documented, common phenomenon, not malingering. Discuss with your ophthalmologist which phenotype you fit and what treatment fits

3. Common patient Q&As

Q1: 'Why do I feel terrible but the exam says I'm fine?'
A: You're not making it up. The 2026 DREAM secondary analysis (Matar et al., Am J Ophthalmol) of 535 moderate-to-severe DED patients found 77% had symptom-sign discordance by the rank-based method, with 37.8% being symptom-dominant (symptoms much worse than exam suggests). Self-reported ocular discomfort correlated 0.47 with OSDI symptoms but ≤ 0.12 with every clinical sign (TBUT, Schirmer, corneal staining, meibomian). Authors hypothesize neurosensory amplification — corneal nerves with heightened reactivity, or altered central pain processing — rather than tear volume or surface inflammation alone. Clinically this subgroup may need more than artificial tears (e.g., agents targeting ocular surface neuropathy, neuropathic-pain modulators). Discuss with your ophthalmologist.
Q2: 'My doctor says my dry eye is severe but I feel fine — is that normal?'
A: Also common. In DREAM, about 39.3% were sign-dominant — exam worse than feelings suggest. This subgroup skewed older and more often had Sjögren's syndrome. The likely mechanism is corneal hypoesthesia — chronic surface inflammation or autoimmune attack reduces corneal nerve density, so substantial surface damage doesn't 'hurt' anymore. This group especially needs adherent treatment and follow-up: 'no symptoms' ≠ 'no damage'. By the time pain returns, there can already be corneal ulceration or irreversible vision loss.
Q3: 'What is OSDI? Why do I have to fill out this questionnaire?'
A: OSDI = Ocular Surface Disease Index, the most widely used DED symptom score. 12 items, 0–100 points (higher = worse). Three domains: vision-related function, ocular symptoms, environmental triggers. Mean baseline OSDI in the 535-patient DREAM cohort was 42. Clinically OSDI is used to (1) standardize symptom reporting across visits, (2) quantify subjective experience alongside the exam, (3) measure treatment effect in trials. A patient with high OSDI but normal exam is the prototypical symptom-dominant phenotype from DREAM.
Q4: 'Does Taiwan NHI cover artificial tears for dry eye? What are the criteria?'
A: Yes. Per Taiwan NHI drug reimbursement rules (updated 2026-10-22), section 14.5 (last amended July 1, 2024), artificial tears require an ophthalmologist diagnosis AND at least one of: (1) Schirmer test < 5 mm in at least one eye; (2) TBUT < 5 seconds; or (3) corneal disease caused by dry eye, exposure keratopathy, or other related keratopathy. Chart must document the relevant findings with notes/photos/video. Quantity limits: 15 mL bottle — 1/month; ≤ 10 mL bottle — 4 every 3 months. Outside these criteria you can buy OTC out-of-pocket. This is the coverage rule; final approval, dose and brand are at the ophthalmologist's discretion. NHI rules update periodically — verify the latest at the NHIA website.
Q5: 'Does NHI cover cyclosporine eye drops (Restasis)?'
A: Yes, but with strict criteria. Per Taiwan NHI drug reimbursement rules (updated 2026-10-22), section 14.9.3 (application form: Appendix 27), Cyclosporine eye drops (e.g., Restasis) are limited to Level 3+ severe DED meeting ALL of: (1) Schirmer test without anesthesia < 5 mm/5min (strip must be attached); (2) TBUT ≤ 5 s; (3) photo documentation of severe corneal punctate epithelial defects, conjunctival hyperemia/staining, filamentary keratitis, corneal ulcer, symblepharon, or keratinization; (4) prior failure of topical anti-inflammatory, punctal plugs, or artificial tears. Requires pre-authorization, re-reviewed every 6 months; continuation requires symptomatic improvement + at least one objective improvement. Outside coverage, out-of-pocket (NT$ several thousand to ~NT$10,000 per course). Use and formulation choice are at your ophthalmologist's discretion.
Q6: 'How strong is the DREAM evidence? Can I trust the conclusions?'
A: Moderate-strength methodological / classification research — not treatment-guideline level. Strengths: large (535), multi-center (27 US sites), 3 cross-checking methods, 12-month follow-up. Limitations: (1) retrospective secondary analysis of a trial not designed for discordance research; (2) no healthy non-dry-eye control group, and both arms took an oral supplement (omega-3 or olive-oil placebo), so discordance without any treatment cannot be assessed; (3) excludes prior refractive surgery patients — an important symptom-dominant subgroup (post-LASIK DED); (4) only moderate-severe DED, doesn't apply to mild; (5) no corneal nerve assessment (e.g., confocal microscopy), so neurosensory inferences are indirect; (6) one author discloses consulting/speaker/research ties with 12+ ophthalmology companies. The 3-method framework is NOT in TFOS DEWS III yet — treat as a physician thinking framework, not a diagnostic standard.
Q7: 'I'm symptom-dominant — what treatment? Different from regular DED?'
A: No symptom-dominant-specific guideline yet, but typical clinical reasoning: (1) start with basics — artificial tears, lid warming, screen-time control, omega-3; (2) assess for coexisting meibomian gland dysfunction and treat if present; (3) if basics fail and exam stays normal, consider neuropathic ocular pain or central sensitization — may refer to a cornea/ocular-surface-pain subspecialist or combine with neuromodulators (low-dose gabapentin, pregabalin, SNRIs, in coordination with psychiatry/pain specialists); (4) autologous serum eye drops help some refractory cases but require special preparation. Key message: normal exam ≠ no treatment. Your experience is real — discuss individualized strategies with your ophthalmologist.
Q8: 'What can I do day-to-day, without medication?'
A: DREAM didn't evaluate lifestyle interventions directly, but lifestyle adjustments mentioned in international consensus reports (TFOS DEWS III, TFOS Lifestyle) include: (1) regular breaks during long screen use (the popular 20-20-20 rule — every 20 min look 20 ft away for 20 s — does not come from these reports); (2) conscious blinking — blinking becomes less frequent and less complete during screen use; (3) avoid AC/fan/heater airflow toward face; (4) adequate room humidity (a humidifier if needed); (5) warm compresses 5–10 min/session (especially useful for MGD); (6) dietary omega-3 (DREAM showed limited benefit in moderate-severe DED); (7) adequate sleep, smoking cessation; (8) shorten contact lens wear; (9) fragrance/preservative-free eye-area cosmetics. These are adjuncts — for established symptoms, see an ophthalmologist to confirm diagnosis and rule out other causes.

4. What is symptom-sign discordance?

Symptom-sign discordance is a long-recognized challenge in DED care: a patient's subjective severity and the clinician's objective findings often don't align. Nichols et al. (Cornea, 2004) first highlighted that DED symptoms and signs "lacked association," and subsequent studies have frequently reported symptom-sign correlations below 0.2 (Pult 2011, Sullivan 2014, TFOS DEWS II 2017).

① Why the mismatch? Three proposed mechanisms

The literature proposes three main mechanisms, which can coexist in one patient:

  1. Tear film instability + ocular surface inflammation (traditional mechanism) — the TFOS DEWS II core definition: tear instability, hyperosmolarity, inflammation, neurosensory abnormalities feed into each other
  2. Neurosensory amplification / neuropathic ocular pain — corneal nerves over-respond to minor stimuli, or central pain processing is altered (central sensitization); this subgroup keeps hurting even when the ocular surface 'looks' normal
  3. Corneal hypoesthesia — chronic inflammation, diabetes, autoimmune disease (especially Sjögren's), neuropathy, chronic medications reduce corneal nerve density; this subgroup feels little even with substantial surface damage

These mechanisms explain why symptoms and signs don't move in parallel — each reflects a different pathology, and conventional 'measure tear volume / look at corneal staining' tools only capture part of the picture.

② Why does this classification matter clinically?

If different phenotypes involve different mechanisms, treatment strategy shouldn't be one-size-fits-all:

  • Symptom-dominant: possibly neurosensory → beyond basic tears, evaluate neuropathic pain, consider neuromodulators, autologous serum
  • Sign-dominant: possibly corneal hypoesthesia → anti-inflammatory (steroids, Cyclosporine), Sjögren's workup, punctal plugs
  • Concordant-severe: classic DED → standard stepwise therapy

5. How was the study conducted?

① About the DREAM trial

DREAM (Dry Eye Assessment and Management) was an NIH/NEI-funded multicenter RCT testing oral omega-3 supplementation for moderate-to-severe DED (Asbell et al., NEJM 2018 — primary result was negative; omega-3 no better than placebo). The trial enrolled 535 patients across 27 US sites, randomized to omega-3 or olive-oil placebo, followed 12 months.

The 2026 Matar paper is a secondary analysis of DREAM — re-using the trial's symptom questionnaires and clinical exam data to study symptom-sign discordance, which wasn't DREAM's original research question.

② Measurement tools used

Scroll horizontally to read the table. With a keyboard, focus the table area and use the arrow keys.

Tool Type Description
OSDISubjectiveOcular Surface Disease Index, 12 items, 0–100
BODISubjectiveBrief Ocular Discomfort Inventory, ocular discomfort severity
TBUTObjectiveTear break-up time (sec), tear film stability
Schirmer 氏試驗ObjectiveTear production (mm/5min); measured with anesthetic in DREAM
角膜螢光染色Objective0-3 scale, corneal epithelial damage (NEI grading)
結膜麗絲胺綠染色Objective0-3 scale, conjunctival epithelial damage
瞼板腺評分ObjectiveMG plugging + secretion quality score
SF-36QoL36-item health survey (overall QoL impact)

③ Three discordance methods

Scroll horizontally to read the table. With a keyboard, focus the table area and use the arrow keys.

Method Logic Clinical use
① Rank-based Rank each patient's symptom score and composite sign score among the 535; compute the rank difference Cross-sectional snapshot — each patient is ranked relative to a reference cohort, so it needs a population and is not a stand-alone single-patient test; suited to population-level phenotyping
② Discomfort-based Use BODI #3 'past-week mean ocular discomfort severity' (0-100) into 4 strata: none/mild, low-mod, high-mod, severe Functional burden lens — answers 'how much is this patient's suffering affecting daily life?'
③ Temporal Compare DIRECTION of change in symptoms vs signs between month 3 and month 12 Treatment-response tracking — answers 'is treatment working?' 'time to adjust?'

The authors emphasize these 3 methods are complementary, not competing — each answers a different kind of clinical question.

6. Finding 1: cross-sectional — 77% are discordant

With the rank-based method on DREAM baseline data and a ±0.1 threshold for concordance:

Scroll horizontally to read the table. With a keyboard, focus the table area and use the arrow keys.

Phenotype N (%) Profile
Symptom-dominant 202（37.8%） Symptoms much worse than signs; younger, higher reported discomfort (female sex and higher bodily pain came from the temporal analysis)
Sign-dominant 210（39.3%） Signs much worse than symptoms; older, more Sjögren's, higher reported relief from treatment
Concordant (mild + severe) 123（23.0%） Subjective and objective align; spans both ends

* Counts from the Results of Matar et al. 2026; characteristics from Table 2 (univariate regression). Note DREAM only enrolled patients with moderate-severe symptoms AND signs, so the concordant-mild quadrant is sparse in this sample.

① Which factors associate with discordance?

Univariate linear regression (Table 2) showed:

  • Age (β=-0.004, p=0.003): older = more sign-dominant
  • BODI discomfort (β=0.006, p<0.001): more discomfort = more symptom-dominant
  • BODI relief from treatment (β=-0.002, p=0.007): more relief reported = more sign-dominant
  • Sjögren's syndrome (β=-0.175, p=0.002): strongly sign-dominant
  • RA, OA: trend toward sign-dominant but not significant (p=0.07)
  • Sex, race, smoking, diabetes, depression, fibromyalgia, antidepressant use: no significant association in this analysis

7. Finding 2: discomfort barely correlates with the exam

One of the paper's most striking findings. Spearman correlations between self-reported ocular discomfort (BODI #3) and various measures (Table 3):

Scroll horizontally to read the table. With a keyboard, focus the table area and use the arrow keys.

vs Discomfort Spearman r p value Strength
Subj: OSDI total0.47<0.001Moderate
Subj: OSDI vision0.23<0.001Weak
Subj: OSDI ocular sx0.44<0.001Moderate
Subj: OSDI environmental0.38<0.001Moderate
Obj: Corneal staining0.120.006Weak
Obj: Conjunctival staining0.040.36Negligible
Obj: TBUT-0.050.25Negligible
Obj: Schirmer-0.100.02Weak
Obj: Meibomian gland0.020.71Negligible

* Convention: r > 0.5 strong; 0.3-0.5 moderate; 0.1-0.3 weak; < 0.1 negligible. The authors describe the discomfort correlations with OSDI total (0.47), ocular symptoms (0.44) and environmental triggers (0.38) as "strong"; this table labels them moderate by the convention above.

⚠️ What does this mean?

When a patient says 'my eyes feel terrible,' the ophthalmic exam has very limited power to predict 'how terrible' (r ≤ 0.12). This is not because exams are inaccurate — it's that subjective distress and objective ocular damage are partly independent phenomena, driven by neurosensory amplification, central pain processing, and psychosocial factors.

The study also found higher discomfort was significantly associated with worse SF-36 scores across bodily pain, mental health, social functioning, and patients with more discomfort reported more interference with daily activity, mood, work and sleep — confirming that the subjective burden of DED affects quality of life broadly, beyond just the eyes.

8. Finding 3: temporal — 46% divergent trajectories over 9 months

The study compared the DIRECTION of change in symptoms vs composite signs between month 3 (M3) and month 12 (M12). M3 (not baseline) was used as reference to mitigate early placebo effects observed in DREAM and to reflect a clinically stable follow-up interval; the authors note other timepoints could be used in future studies.

Scroll horizontally to read the table. With a keyboard, focus the table area and use the arrow keys.

Sign metric N Sign-dominant Symptom-dominant Concordant
Composite44522.7%23.4%53.9%
Corneal staining45432.2%30.0%37.9%
Conjunctival staining45834.5%30.6%34.9%
Schirmer44939.2%28.1%32.7%（最低）
TBUT44625.8%26.7%47.5%（最高）
MGD45635.5%26.1%38.4%

* From Matar et al. 2026, Table 4.

Key findings:

  • Even with the composite, 46% had divergent symptom-sign trajectories over 9 months — discordance isn't just a single-snapshot phenomenon, it persists over time
  • TBUT aligned best with symptom changes over time (47.5%) — suggesting tear film instability is the sign patients are most sensitive to
  • Schirmer had the highest sign-dominant rate (39.2%) — the authors suggest tear deficiency may often be 'under-reported' by patients (declining tear volume doesn't always register subjectively)
  • In multivariate analysis, antidepressant use associated with temporal concordance (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.08-2.67, p=0.02) — may reflect more consistent symptom reporting in this group, or effects of comorbid mental health, rather than a direct drug effect
  • Female + higher bodily pain associated with symptom-dominant discordance in the corneal staining model (female OR 2.11, p=0.01; bodily pain per point OR 1.03, p=0.03)

9. Who falls into which phenotype?

Integrating findings across the 3 methods, the typical profiles are (statistical tendency, not individual prediction):

Scroll horizontally to read the table. With a keyboard, focus the table area and use the arrow keys.

Phenotype Typical profile Possible mechanism
Symptom-dominant • Younger
• Female
• High overall bodily pain scores
• High OSDI but normal exam
• High self-reported discomfort
• Other studies link it to chronic pain (fibromyalgia was not significant in this study)		 Neurosensory amplification
(corneal nerves or central pain processing)
Sign-dominant • Older
• Sjögren's / autoimmune disease
• Marked corneal staining, low Schirmer
• Self-reports 'fine' or 'no problem'
• Paradoxically higher 'relief from treatment'		 Corneal hypoesthesia
(chronic inflammation / autoimmune reduces nerve density)
Concordant • Symptoms and signs both mild OR both severe
• On antidepressants (temporal method)
• Subjective + objective responses move in parallel		 Classic DED
(tear film instability + surface inflammation)

10. Clinical meaning — why this matters

① For patients: your experience is real

If you're symptom-dominant, the most important message is — your discomfort isn't malingering or 'oversensitivity'. About 38% of DREAM's 535 patients fit this phenotype; it's common. You may have been told 'the exam looks fine' or 'just use artificial tears' — but this reflects current diagnostic limits, not the absence of your symptoms. Discuss with your ophthalmologist: (1) evaluation for neuropathic ocular pain; (2) coexisting meibomian gland dysfunction; (3) advanced options like autologous serum drops.

If you're sign-dominant, the key message is — 'no symptoms' ≠ 'no problem'. About 39% of the cohort fit this; patients with Sjögren's were more likely to fall in this group. The cornea may be damaged even when you don't feel it; by the time pain returns, ulceration or irreversible vision loss may have occurred. Adhere to drops and follow-up — don't stop or delay because 'I feel fine.'

② For clinicians: 3 phenotypes → 3 lines of thinking

💡 Authors' suggested clinical use

  • Rank-based (cross-sectional): population-level phenotyping, comparable with prior studies using similar methods — ranks are relative to the cohort; the authors suggest it may help identify patients most likely to benefit from DED-targeted treatment
  • Discomfort-based: for 'how much is this patient's suffering affecting daily life?' — flags patients whose symptom burden clearly exceeds what the exam shows
  • Temporal: for monitoring treatment response and disease course — compare the direction of symptom and sign change between two visits (this study compared month 3 with month 12; the authors do not recommend a specific follow-up schedule and note other timepoints could be used in future studies)

The 3 methods are complementary, not competing — together they give a fuller picture. But this framework is not yet a TFOS DEWS III standard — guideline-based therapy remains the clinical backbone.

11. Taiwan NHI dry-eye coverage (updated 22 October 2026)

Taiwan's NHI covers two main classes for DED: 14.5 artificial tears and 14.9.3 Cyclosporine eye drops (e.g., Restasis). Current rules below.

① 14.5 Artificial tears (last amended July 1, 2024)

Scroll horizontally to read the table. With a keyboard, focus the table area and use the arrow keys.

ItemContent
Initial criteria
(any one)		Ophthalmologist diagnosis required, plus any one of:
1. Schirmer < 5 mm in ≥1 eye, OR
2. TBUT < 5 sec, OR
3. Corneal disease caused by dry eye, exposure keratopathy, or other related keratopathy requiring treatment
DocumentationChart documentation with relevant notes, photos, or video
Quantity limit15 mL bottle: 1 per month
≤ 10 mL bottle: 4 per 3 months

② 14.9.3 Cyclosporine eye drops (e.g., Restasis)

Scroll horizontally to read the table. With a keyboard, focus the table area and use the arrow keys.

ItemContent
EligibilityDED severity Level 3 or above
Required criteria
(ALL needed)		1. Schirmer without anesthesia < 5 mm/5min, strip required
2. TBUT ≤ 5 sec
3. External color photo + fluorescein-staining photo (severe corneal PEE, conjunctival hyperemia/staining, filamentary keratitis, ulcer, symblepharon, keratinization)
4. Failed prior topical anti-inflammatory, punctal plugs, or artificial tears
Review processPre-authorization required; re-reviewed every 6 months
Continuation(1) Symptomatic improvement (dryness, photophobia, discharge) + (2) Any one improved: Schirmer / TBUT / corneal staining / conjunctival hyperemia/staining

③ How does this relate to DREAM's discordance findings?

Taiwan NHI's criteria are predominantly objective-sign-based (Schirmer, TBUT, staining photos). For DREAM's 'symptom-dominant' phenotype, this means: even with severe subjective symptoms, if objective exam doesn't meet criteria, NHI won't cover artificial tears or Cyclosporine.

This isn't NHI being 'unreasonable' — objective-criteria-based coverage is a reasonable sustainability mechanism. But for patients, the practical implication is: symptom-dominant patients may more often need self-pay options (OTC artificial tears, self-pay Restasis, autologous serum). Recommendations: (1) get a thorough exam with documentation; (2) discuss your treatment ladder with your doctor; (3) ask your doctor about cost ranges for self-pay options.

Other drugs: for the neuromodulators mentioned above (gabapentin, pregabalin, duloxetine), the NHI drug reimbursement rules cover pain use only for specific conditions (e.g., post-herpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, fibromyalgia; sections 1.1.6–1.1.8); neuropathic ocular pain is not listed. Whether they can be prescribed under NHI for eye pain is something to discuss with your doctor.

* NHI coverage rules: Taiwan NHI drug reimbursement rules (updated 2026-10-22), section 14 Ophthalmic preparations (14.5, 14.9.3) and sections 1.1.6–1.1.8. Actual application per NHIA notice.

12. Limitations and caveats

⚠️ Honest read of the evidence

The study contributes meaningfully (large sample, multi-center, 3 methods, 12-month follow-up), but its proper place in the evidence hierarchy:

  • Single secondary analysis: DREAM tested omega-3; discordance is post-hoc; needs replication in independent cohorts
  • No healthy control group: both arms took an oral supplement (omega-3 or olive-oil placebo), so discordance without any treatment cannot be assessed
  • Excluded post-refractive-surgery patients: a major symptom-dominant clinical group (post-LASIK DED) — findings don't generalize
  • Only moderate-severe DED with both symptoms and signs: excludes mild DED and pure neuropathic ocular pain (severe symptoms, zero signs)
  • No corneal nerve assessment: no confocal microscopy or esthesiometry — neurosensory inferences are indirect, not directly demonstrated
  • Each method rests on assumptions; no gold standard: each definition has its own assumptions, none is THE truth
  • Linear normalization assumption: the 5-sign composite assumes linearity and equal weighting, which may not hold in all settings; composite scores may also obscure how individual signs change
  • Author conflicts of interest: co-author Asbell discloses ties (consulting/speaker/research) with 12+ ophthalmology-related companies (AbbVie, Amgen, Azura, CS Pharmaceuticals, Glia, Harrow, Horizon, Iolyx, LinkBiologic, Premark, Regeneron, Santen, Senju, Trefoil, Vindico). Of the other authors, Ying and Sayegh disclosed only NIH/NEI funding; the remaining 3 had no disclosures. Disclosed COIs ≠ biased conclusions, but readers should weigh this
  • Not yet in TFOS DEWS III: this 3-method framework is currently a 'research perspective' — guideline-based therapy remains the clinical backbone

13. Common myths

Myth 1: 'Normal exam means I'm faking or too sensitive.'
Truth: No. About 38% of DREAM's 535 patients are symptom-dominant. The data are clear: subjective discomfort ↔ objective signs r ≤ 0.12, essentially uncorrelated. This is a common phenomenon, likely involving neurosensory amplification and chronic-pain mechanisms — not 'oversensitivity.'
Myth 2: 'More artificial tears = better; pricier tears = more effective.'
Truth: No. For symptom-dominant patients, more tears don't necessarily help neurosensory pain — and preservatives (e.g., BAK) can actually damage the ocular surface with overuse. Price reflects formulation (preservative-free, hyaluronic acid, trehalose, etc.), not 'more expensive = better.' Discuss with your ophthalmologist: (1) your phenotype; (2) right formulation (unit-dose preservative-free vs multi-dose bottle); (3) need for adjunctive anti-inflammatory or other treatment.
Myth 3: 'Normal dry-eye exam means no treatment needed.'
Truth: Depends on phenotype. Symptom-dominant: exam may be normal but symptoms are real — treatment still needed (tears, neuromodulators, autologous serum etc.). Sign-dominant: exam severe but feels fine — must treat anyway to prevent progression to ulcer or vision loss. The exam is one input, not the whole answer — treatment decisions integrate symptoms, signs, comorbidities, and QoL impact.
Myth 4: 'Omega-3 supplements always work for dry eye.'
Truth: Limited benefit for moderate-severe DED. The DREAM trial's main result (Asbell et al., NEJM 2018) comparing omega-3 vs olive oil placebo showed no significant benefit of omega-3. May still help mild DED or specific contexts (e.g., systemic inflammation), but it's not a cure-all. Discuss supplementation and dose with your ophthalmologist.
Myth 5: 'Sjögren's only needs treatment after dry mouth/eye gets severe.'
Truth: The opposite. Sjögren's patients are often DREAM's sign-dominant phenotype — severe exam, milder symptoms. By the time it 'feels dry,' substantial glandular damage may already exist. If you have persistent dry eyes/mouth ≥3 months, recurrent foreign-body sensation, or frequent artificial-tear use (per Taiwan NHI's 2002 European Sjögren's criteria), seek care early with combined ophthalmology + rheumatology evaluation. Early diagnosis matters for both vision and systemic disease management.

14. Advanced: for readers who want more depth

This section uses more technical language and suits medical students, residents, optometrists, and readers interested in methodology. General readers can stop at the previous section.

① Neuropathic ocular pain (NOP) and central sensitization

  • NOP concept formalized by Rosenthal et al. (Ocul Surf 2009) 'Corneal pain without stain' — persistent corneal pain without corresponding staining or objective signs
  • Mechanism hypotheses: (a) peripheral sensitization — corneal nerves over-react after inflammation/injury; (b) central sensitization — altered trigeminal nucleus or higher-order pain processing; (c) descending modulation failure
  • Diagnostic tools: (a) in vivo confocal microscopy — quantifies corneal nerve density/length, dendritic cell density; (b) esthesiometry (Cochet-Bonnet or non-contact) — quantifies mechanical/thermal threshold
  • Treatment ladder (local→systemic): preservative-free tears → topical cyclosporine/lifitegrast → autologous serum → scleral lens → neuromodulators (gabapentin, pregabalin, SNRI like duloxetine) → CBT → advanced nerve blocks. Requires multidisciplinary care (ophthalmology, pain, psychiatry)

② Chronic Overlapping Pain Conditions (COPCs)

Levitt et al. (Mol Pain 2017) proposed DED may belong to the COPC family — chronic pain syndromes sharing central sensitization, including fibromyalgia, chronic headache, TMD, chronic pelvic pain, IBS. COPC patients often have multiple chronic pains, elevated bodily pain scores (SF-36), female predominance — overlapping closely with DREAM's symptom-dominant profile. Clinically, a symptom-dominant DED patient with other chronic pain conditions should be evaluated as possibly within COPC, shifting treatment toward systemic pain modulation rather than purely local therapy.

③ Why does Schirmer dominate the 'sign-dominant' picture?

In DREAM's temporal analysis, Schirmer had the highest sign-dominant rate (39.2%) and lowest concordance (32.7%). Possible reasons:

  • Absolute changes in tear volume (e.g., 9→6 mm/5min) have limited subjective impact — patients chronically adapted to gradual decline 'don't feel' the change
  • Schirmer has high test-retest variability (mm differences across repeats in same patient) — 'direction of change' has noisy signal
  • Tear production reflects aqueous deficiency; subjective discomfort also depends on lipid/mucin layers, surface inflammation, and neurosensory factors — one measure can't capture the whole picture

④ DREAM in relation to the TFOS DEWS II treatment ladder

TFOS DEWS II (2017) treats DED in a stepwise ladder (Step 1–4): lifestyle + tears (1), topical anti-inflammatory + punctal plugs (2), autologous serum + therapeutic contact lens (3), surgical (4). The ladder is primarily symptom-severity-based with no formal symptom-dominant vs sign-dominant branching. In 2025, TFOS DEWS III switched to an etiology-based prescribing algorithm (tear film, eyelid and ocular surface drivers), but it still has no symptom-dominant vs sign-dominant branching. DREAM's contribution hints that future guidelines may also need phenotype-based triage, with different priority orders for the two discordance subgroups.

15. Summary: what you can do

If you're symptom-dominant (feel terrible but exam normal): (1) your experience is real, not malingering; (2) discuss in depth with your ophthalmologist — beyond basic tears, evaluate for neuropathic pain, add anti-inflammatory, consider autologous serum; (3) review lifestyle (screen time, AC, blink frequency, contact lens use); (4) assess for other chronic pain (fibromyalgia, chronic headache) — if present, may need multidisciplinary care; (5) don't expect a 'cure' — this phenotype usually requires long-term management.

If you're sign-dominant (severe exam but feel fine): (1) 'no symptoms' ≠ 'no problem'; (2) adherent treatment and regular follow-up are critical; (3) if Schirmer is persistently low + dry mouth, discuss Sjögren's workup with ophthalmology + rheumatology; (4) corneal hypoesthesia can also relate to diabetes, post-LASIK, neuropathy — address relevant comorbidities.

What you can't skip: regular visual breaks, avoid direct AC/heater airflow, maintain indoor humidity, warm compresses (especially if coexisting MGD), adequate sleep, smoking cessation — these help every DED phenotype and are lifestyle adjustments mentioned in international consensus reports (TFOS DEWS III, TFOS Lifestyle).

What not to do alone: don't adjust or stop Cyclosporine on your own; don't mix multiple eye drops (especially steroids) without supervision; don't decide 'I don't hurt so I'll stop'; don't skip Sjögren's evaluation if your doctor suggests it.

One final note on the 2026 DREAM secondary analysis: the study's main value isn't a new treatment but validating the long-observed phenomenon that subjective and objective severity can diverge widely, with a quantifiable, reproducible classification framework. For patients: your experience deserves to be taken seriously. For doctors: don't rely on a single metric. Hopefully this digest enables a deeper, more evidence-grounded conversation at your next visit.

References

  1. [本文主要來源] Matar K, Yu Y, Augello P, Ying GS, Asbell PA, Sayegh RR; DREAM Research Group. Defining Discordance Between Signs and Symptoms in Dry Eye Disease: Insights From the DRy Eye Assessment and Management (DREAM) Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2026;286:41-49. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2026.02.031
  2. [DREAM 試驗主結果] Asbell PA, Maguire MG, Pistilli M, et al. n-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(18):1681-1690. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1709691
  3. [DREAM 試驗設計] Asbell PA, Maguire MG, Peskin E, Bunya VY, Kuklinski EJ; DREAM Study Research Group. Dry Eye Assessment and Management (DREAM) study: Study design and baseline characteristics. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;71:70-79. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2018.06.002
  4. [TFOS DEWS II 定義] Craig JP, Nichols KK, Akpek EK, et al. TFOS DEWS II Definition and Classification Report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):276-283. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.008
  5. [TFOS DEWS II 流行病學] Stapleton F, Alves M, Bunya VY, et al. TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):334-365. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.003
  6. [症狀-徵象不一致流行病學] Ong ES, Felix ER, Levitt RC, Feuer WJ, Sarantopoulos CD, Galor A. Epidemiology of discordance between symptoms and signs of dry eye. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102(5):674-679. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310633
  7. [Discordance 預測因子] Vehof J, Sillevis Smitt-Kamminga N, Nibourg SA, Hammond CJ. Predictors of discordance between symptoms and signs in dry eye disease. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(3):280-286. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.11.008
  8. [症狀徵象缺乏關聯原始觀察] Nichols KK, Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL. The lack of association between signs and symptoms in patients with dry eye disease. Cornea. 2004;23(8):762-770. doi:10.1097/01.ico.0000133997.07144.9e
  9. [神經病理性眼痛概念] Rosenthal P, Baran I, Jacobs DS. Corneal pain without stain: is it real? Ocul Surf. 2009;7(1):28-40. doi:10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70290-2
  10. [神經病理性眼痛系統回顧] Galor A, Levitt RC, Felix ER, Martin ER, Sarantopoulos CD. Neuropathic ocular pain: an important yet underevaluated feature of dry eye. Eye (Lond). 2015;29(3):301-312. doi:10.1038/eye.2014.263
  11. [乾眼症與慢性重疊疼痛狀況] Levitt AE, Galor A, Chowdhury AR, et al. Evidence That Dry Eye Represents a Chronic Overlapping Pain Condition. Mol Pain. 2017;13:1744806917729306. doi:10.1177/1744806917729306
  12. [Shtein 不一致乾眼症論文] Shtein RM, Harper DE, Pallazola V, et al. Discordant Dry Eye Disease (An American Ophthalmological Society Thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2016;114:T4.
  13. [症狀-徵象相關性歷史研究] Sullivan BD, Crews LA, Messmer EM, et al. Correlations between commonly used objective signs and symptoms for the diagnosis of dry eye disease: clinical implications. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(2):161-166. doi:10.1111/aos.12012
  14. [TFOS DEWS II 診斷方法] Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R, et al. TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology Report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):539-574. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001
  15. [共軛焦顯微鏡與乾眼神經] Cox SM, Kheirkhah A, Aggarwal S, et al. Alterations in corneal nerves in different subtypes of dry eye disease: an in vivo confocal microscopy study. Ocul Surf. 2021;22:135-142. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2021.08.004
  16. [性別差異] Lu PT, Lee CY, Sun CC. Sex differences and discordance between symptoms and signs of dry eye disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2024;260:14-20. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2023.10.008
  17. [台灣健保給付規定] 衛生福利部中央健康保險署. 《全民健康保險藥品給付規定》民國 115 年 10 月 22 日更新版，第 14 節「眼科製劑」14.5「人工淚液」、14.9.3「Cyclosporine 眼用製劑」、附表二十七「全民健康保險眼科含 cyclosporine 製劑事前審查申請書」。