Community visual field screening: Prevalence of follow-up and factors associated with follow-up of participants with abnormal frequency doubling perimetry technology results

Ophthalmic Epidemiology

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 134-140

  Mansberger, Steven L ^a   Edmunds, Beth ^a   Johnson, Chris A ^a   Kent, Kyle J ^a   Cioffi, George A ^a  

^a DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Frequency doubling technology perimetry; Glaucoma; Perimetry; Screening; Utilization

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMMUNITY CARE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; EYE CARE; EYE EXAMINATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENDER; GROUPS BY AGE; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HIGH SCHOOL; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; SCREENING TEST; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TELEPHONE; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIMETRY; PILOT PROJECTS; PREVALENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES; VISION DISORDERS; VISION SCREENING; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 34347373458     PISSN: 09286586     EISSN: 17445086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09286580601174060     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Thylefors B, Negrel AD, Pararajasegaram R, Dadzie KY. Global data on blindness. Bull World Health Organ 1995; 73:115-121.
2. Grant WM, Burke JF, Jr. Why do some people go blind from glaucoma? Ophthalmology 1982; 89:991-998.
3. Unzueta M, Globe D, Wu J, Paz S, Azen S, Varma R. Compliance with recommendations for follow-up care in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ethn Dis. 2004; 14:285-291.
4. Quigley HA, Park CK, Tracey PA, Pollack IP. Community screening for eye disease by laypersons: the Hoffberger program. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002; 133:386-392.
5. Anderson A, Johnson C. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. In: Sample PA, Girkin C, eds. Ophthalmology Clinics of North America. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2003:213-225.
6. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998; 125:819-829.
7. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC, Rothe TL. Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 129:740-745.
8. Khong JJ, Dimitrov PN, Rait J, McCarty CA. Can the specificity of the FDT for glaucoma be improved by confirming abnormal results? J Glaucoma 2001; 10:199-202.
9. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, Robin AL. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry [In Process Citation]. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 129:323-327.
10. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, Higginbotham EJ. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice [In Process Citation]. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 129:328-333.
11. Tatemichi M, Nakano T, Tanaka K, et al. Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequencydoubling technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002; 134:529-537.
12. Vision Problems in the U.S.: Prevent Blindness America, 2002: 9.
13. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley, 2000.
14. Claridge O, Ford RP, Schluter PJ, Wild CJ, Macleod L. The length of the referral chain after failing preschool tympanometry. N Z Med J. 1995; 108:479-481.
15. Tan HH, Tan HK, Lim HS, Tan AS, Lim SC. Gestational diabetes mellitus: a call for systematic tracing. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2002; 31:281-284.
16. Kosoko O, Quigley HA, Vitale S, Enger C, Kerrigan L, Tielsch JM. Risk factors for noncompliance with glaucoma follow-up visits in a residents' eye clinic. Ophthalmology 1998; 105:2105-2111.
17. Nirmalan PK, Katz J, Robin AL, et al. Utilisation of eye care services in rural south India: the Aravind Comprehensive Eye Survey. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004; 88:1237-1241.
18. Wang Y, Xu L, Jonas JB. Prevalence and causes of visual field loss as determined by frequency doubling perimetry in urban and rural adult chinese. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 141:1078-1086 e1.
19. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Q. 2005; 69:87-98.
20. Duncan P, Reker D, Kwon S, et al. Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care 2005; 43:507-515.
21. Keeter S, Miller C, Kohut A, Groves R, Presser S. Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Q. 2000; 64:125-148.