Visual function and subjective quality of life compared in subjects with acquired macular disease

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 1309-1315

  Hazel, Charlotte A ^a   Petre, Keziah Latham ^a   Armstrong, Richard A ^a   Benson, Mark T ^b   Frost, N Andrew ^b  

^a ASTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; RETINA MACULA DEGENERATION; VISION TEST; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MACULAR DEGENERATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRINTING; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; READING; VISION TESTS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 0034059082     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Lovie-Kitchin JE, Bowman K. Senile Macular Degeneration. Management and Rehabilitation. Boston: Butterworth; 1985.
2. Hess RF, Woo G. Vision through cataracts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1978;17:428-435.
3. Paulsson L-E, Sjöstrand J. Contrast sensitivity in the presence of a glare light. Theoretical concepts and preliminary clinical studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1980;19:401-406.
4. Marron JA, Bailey IL. Visual factors and orientation-mobility performance. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982;59:413-426.
5. Owsley C, Sloane ME. Contrast sensitivity, acuity, and the perception of "real-world" targets. Br J Ophthalmol. 1987;71:791-796.
6. Lennerstrand G, Carl-Otto A. Contrast sensitivity in macular degeneration and the relation to subjective visual impairment. Acta Ophthalmol. 1989;67:225-233.
7. Elliott DB, Hurst MA. Simple clinical techniques to evaluate visual function in patients with early cataract. Optom Vis Sci. 1990;67: 822-825.
8. Elliott DB, Hurst MA, Weatherill J. Comparing clinical tests of visual function in cataract with the patient's perceived visual disability. Eye. 1990;4:712-717.
9. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Lawrence MG, Seddon JM, Orav EJ, Goldman L. Improved visual function and attenuation of declines in health-related quality of life after cataract extraction. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:1419-1425.
10. Rubin GS, Roche KB, Prasada-Rao P, Fried LP. Visual impairment and disability in older adults. Optom Vis Sci. 1994;71:750-760.
11. Rubin GS. Predicting reading performance in low vision observers with age-related maculopathy. In: Woo GC, ed. Low Vision: Principles and Applications. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Low Vision. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1986:323-333.
12. Leat S, Woodhouse JM. Reading performance with low vision aids: relationship with contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1993;13:9-15.
13. Farrall H. Optometric management of visual handicap. In: Fletcher R, ed. Modern Optometry. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science; 1991.
14. Elliott DB, Trukolo-Ilic M, Strong JG, Pace R, Plotkin A, Bevers P. Demographic characteristics of the vision-disabled elderly. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:2566-2575.
15. Goodrich GL, Mehr EB, Quillman RD, Shaw HK, Wiley JK. Training and practice effects in performance with low vision aids: A preliminary study. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1977;54:312-318.
16. Brown B. Reading performance in low vision patients: relation to contrast and contrast sensitivity. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1981; 58:218-226.
17. Legge GE, Ross JA, Maxwell KT, Luebker A. Psychophysics of reading, VII: comprehension in normal and low vision. Clin Vis Sci. 1989;4:51-60.
18. Sloan LL, Habel A. Reading speeds with textbooks in standard and large print. Sightsaving Rev. 1973;43:107-111.
19. Krischer CC, Meissen R. Reading speed under real and simulated visual impairment. J Vis Impairment Blindness. 1983;6:386-388.
20. Legge GE, Glenn A. Fry award lecture 1990: three perspectives on low vision reading. Optom Vis Sci. 1991;68:763-769.
21. Legge GE, Ross JA, Isenberg LM, LaMay JM. Psychophysics of reading, XII: clinical predictors of low vision reading speed Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33:677-687.
22. Ahn SJ, Legge GE. Psychophysics of reading, XIII: predictors of magnifier-aided reading speed in low vision. Vision Res. 1995;35: 1931-1938.
23. Rubin GS, Legge GE. Psychophysics of reading, VI: the role of contrast in low vision. Vision Res. 1989;29:79-91.
24. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, et al. Development of the Activities of Daily Vision Scale. Med Care. 1992;30:1111-1126.
25. Sloane ME, Ball K, Owsley C, Bruni JR, Roenker DL. The Visual Activities Questionnaire: developing an instrument for assessing problems in everyday visual tasks. Tech Digest 1992;1:26-29.
26. 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.
27. Lundström M, Fregell G, Sjöblom A. Vision related daily life problems in patients waiting for a cataract extraction. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:608-611.
28. Mangione CM, Berry S, Spritzer K, et al. Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:227-233
29. The International Age-related Maculopathy Epidemiological Study Group. An international classification and grading system for age-related maculopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Surv Ophthalmol. 1995;39:367-374.
30. Faye EE. Clinical Low Vision. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown; 1984.
31. Frost NA, Sparrow JM, Durant JS, Donovan JL, Peters TJ, Brookes ST. Development of a questionnaire for the measurement of vision related quality of life. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1998;5:185-210.
32. Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New design principles for the visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976;53:740-745.
33. Bailey IL, Lovie JE. The design and use of a new near-vision chart. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1980;57:378-387.
34. Elliott DB, Bullimore M, Bailey IL. Improving the Reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test. Clin Vis Sci. 1991;6:471-475.
35. Elliott DB, Whitaker D, Bonette L. Differences in the legibility of letters at contrast threshold using the Pelli-Robson chart. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1990;10:323-326.
36. Whittaker SG, Lovie-Kitchin JE. Visual requirements for reading. Optom Vis Sci. 1993;70:54-65.
37. Friedman S, Munoz B, Rubin G, West S, Bandeen-Roche K, Fried L. Characteristics of discrepancies between self-reported visual function and measured reading speed. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:858-864.
38. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27:S217-S233.
39. Wu AW, Coleson LC, Holbrook J, Jabs DA. Measuring visual function and quality of life in patients with cytomegalovirus retinitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:841-847.
40. Klein B, Klein R. Lee K. Associations of performance-based and self-reported measures of visual function. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1999;6:49-60.
41. Monestam E, Wachtmeister L. Cataract surgery from a gender perspective: a population based study in Sweden. Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76:711-716.
42. Ross JE, Bron AJ, Clarke DD. Contrast sensitivity and visual disability in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1984;68:821-827.
43. Ball K, Owsley C. The useful field of view test: a new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. J Am Optom Assoc. 1992;64:71-9.