A quality of life comparison of people wearing spectacles or contact lenses or having undergone refractive surgery

Journal of Refractive Surgery

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 19-27

  Pesudovs, Konrad ^a   Garamendi, Estibaliz ^b   Elliott, David B ^b  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTACT LENS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; KERATOMILEUSIS; LASER EPITHELIAL KERATOMILEUSIS; LENS IMPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHOTOREFRACTIVE KERATECTOMY; POST HOC ANALYSIS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRESBYOPIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE IMPACT OF REFRACTIVE CORRECTION QUESTIONNAIRE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RASCH ANALYSIS; REFRACTIVE SURGERY; SPECTACLES;

EID: 31644448429     PISSN: 1081597X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3928/1081-597x-20060101-07     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Vision Watch. Vision Correction Market Review. New York, NY: Jobson Publishing; 2003.
2. Thibos LN, Applegate RA, Schwiegerling JT, Webb R. Standards for reporting the optical aberrations of eyes. J Refract Surg. 2002;18:S652-S660.
3. Waring GO III. Standard graphs for reporting refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2000;16:459-466.
4. Schein OD. The measurement of patient-reported outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;98:439-469.
5. McDonnell PJ, Mangione C, Lee P, Lindblad AS, Spritzer KL, Berry S, Hays RD. Responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to surgical correction of refractive error. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2302-2309.
6. Fraenkel G, Comaish F, Lawless MA, Kelly MR, Dunn SM, Byth K, Webber SK, Sutton GL, Rogers CM. Development of a questionnaire to assess subjective vision score in myopes seeking refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2004;20:10-19.
7. Ben-Sira A, Loewenstein A, Lipshitz I, Levanon D, Lazar M. Patient satisfaction after 5.0-mm photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Refract Surg. 1997;13:129-134.
8. McGhee CN, Craig JP, Sachdev N, Weed KH, Brown AD. Functional, psychological, and satisfaction outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:497-509.
9. Rose K, Harper R, Tromans C, Waterman C, Goldberg D, Haggerty C, Tullo A. Quality of life in myopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1031-1034.
10. Hill JC. An informal satisfaction survey of 200 patients after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg. 2002;18:454-459.
11. Walline JJ, Bailey MD, Zadnik K. Vision-specific quality of life and modes of refractive error correction. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77:648-652.
12. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. The performance of the refractive status and vision profile survey in a contact lens clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1160-1166.
13. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Saracino M, Zadnik K. Reliability and validity of refractive error-specific quality-of-life instruments. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:1289-1296.
14. Likert RA. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:1-55.
15. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, Lawrence GM, Cook EF, Dailey R, Goldman L. Development of the "Activities of Daily Vision Scale." A measure of visual functional status. Med Care. 1992;30:1111-1126.
16. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Keeves JP, Elliott DB. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale for cataract surgery outcomes: re-evaluating validity with Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:2892-2899.
17. Fisher WP Jr. The Rasch debate: validity and revolution in educational measurement. In: Wilson M, ed. Objective Measurement: Theory Into Practice. Vol 2. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1994:36-72.
18. Fisher WP Jr, Eubanks R, Marier RL. Equating the MOS SF36 and the LSU HSI Physical Functioning Scales. J Outcome Meas. 1997;1:329-362.
19. Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:516-552.
20. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70:857-860.
21. Raczek AE, Ware JE, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Haley SM, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bech P, Brazier JE, Bullinger M, Sullivan M. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1203-1214.
22. White LJ, Velozo CA. The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:822-831.
23. Norquist JM, Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J, Jenkinson C. Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care. 2004;42:I25-I36.
24. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81:769-777.
25. Office for National Statistics. National Statistics Online Ethnicity Classification. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/ Classifications/ns_ethnic_classification.asp. Accessed February 16, 2002.
26. The Market Research Society. Occupation Groupings. A Job Dictionary. London, United Kingdom: The Market Research Society; 2003.
27. Walline JJ, Zadnik K, Mutti DO. Validity of surveys reporting myopia, astigmatism, and presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73:376-381.
28. Nagata C, Ido M, Shimizu H, Misao A, Matsuura H. Choice of response scale for health measurement: comparison of 4, 5, and 7-point scales and visual analog scale. J Epidemiol. 1996;6:192-197.
29. Skevington SM, Tucker C. Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. Br J Med Psychol. 1999;72:51-61.
30. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago, Ill: MESA Press; 1982.
31. Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas. 1999;3:103-122.
32. Pointer JS. An optometric population is not the same as the general population. Optometry in Practice. 2000;1:92-96.
33. Mintel. Optical Goods and Eyecare. London, United Kingdom: Mintel; 2002.
34. Garamendi E, Pesudovs K, Elliott DB. Changes in quality of life after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:1537-1543.
35. Schein OD, Vitale S, Cassard SD, Steinberg EP. Patient outcomes of refractive surgery. The refractive status and vision profile. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:665-673.
36. Melki SA, Azar DT. LASIK complications: etiology, management, and prevention. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;46:95-116.
37. Erickson DB, Ryan RA, Erickson P, Aquavella JV. Cognitive styles and personality characteristics strongly influence the decision to have photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg. 1995;11:267-274.
38. Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation. 1996;6:135-141.
39. Cheng KH, Leung SL, Hoekman HW, Beekhuis WH, Mulder PG, Geerards AJ, Kijlstra A. Incidence of contact-lens-associated microbial keratitis and its related morbidity. Lancet. 1999;354:181-185.
40. Wittenberg S. Do ordinary spectacle lenses reduce eye injuries? Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:465-467.