The glaucoma symptom scale: A brief index of glaucoma-specific symptoms

Archives of Ophthalmology

Volumn 116, Issue 7, 1998, Pages 861-866

  Lee, Brian L ^a   Gutierrez, Peter ^b   Gordon, Mae ^c   Wilson, M Roy ^a,d   Cioffi, George A ^e   Ritch, Robert ^f   Sherwood, Mark ^g   Mangione, Carol M ^b  

^a JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d DREW UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f NEW YORK EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISION;

EID: 0031760328     PISSN: 00039950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archopht.116.7.861     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Quality of Care Committee, Glaucoma Panel. Primary Open-angle Glaucoma: Preferred Practice Pattern. San Francisco, Calif: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 1992.
2. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. The Mini-Mental State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189-198.
3. Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, et al. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:777-784.
4. Mangione CM, Berry S, Spritzer K, et al. Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEIVFQ-51): results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:227-233.
5. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:630-638.
6. Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al. Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1989;262:907-913.
7. Ferris FL, Dassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94:91-96.
8. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Investigators. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, 2: visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1589-1595.
9. Kim JO, Mueller CW. Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1990.
10. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc; 1987.
11. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, Mass: Nimrod Press; 1993.
12. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978:245-246.
13. Camras CB, the United States Latanoprost Study Group. Comparison of latanoprost and timolol in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:138-147.
14. Watson P, Stjernschantz J, the Latanoprost Study Group. A six-month, randomized, double-masked study comparing latanoprost with timolol in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:126-137.
15. Mishima HK, Masuda K, Kitazawa Y, Azuma I, Araie M. A comparison of latanoprost and timolol in primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:929-932.
16. Barber BL, Strahlman ER, Laibovitz R, Guess HA, Reines SA. Validation of a questionnaire for comparing the tolerability of ophthalmic medications. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:334-342.