Estimating quality-adjusted life year losses associated with visual field deficits using methodological approaches

Ophthalmic Epidemiology

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 258-264

  Rein, David B ^a   Wirth, Kathleen E ^b   Johnson, Chris A ^d   Lee, Paul P ^c  

^a RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY EYE CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Economics; Glaucoma; QALY; Visual field

Indexed keywords

BLINDNESS; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 34848819399     PISSN: 09286586     EISSN: 17445086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01658100701473267     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Busbee B. Quality of life associated with visual loss: A time tradeoff utility analysis comparison with medical health states. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1076-1081.
2. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S. Quality of life with visual acuity loss from diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:481-484.
3. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Kistler J, Brown H. Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:327-331.
4. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Hollands H, Landy J. Quality of life and systemic comorbidities in patients with ophthalmic disease. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:8-11.
5. Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, Kistler J. Utility values and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:47-51.
6. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, Shah GK, Snow K, Brown H, Hollands H. Converting visual acuity to utilities. Can J Ophthalmol 2000;35:267-272.
7. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Landy J. Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol 2003;48:204-223.
8. Maciosek M, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: Results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med 2006;31:52-61.
9. Holmstrom S, Buchholz P, Walt J, Wickstrom J, Aagren M. The cost-effectiveness of bimatoprost, latanoprost and timolol in treatment of primary open angle glaucoma in five European countries. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:897-905.
10. Peeters A, Schouten JS, Webers CA, Prins MH, Hendrikse F, Severens JL. Cost-effectiveness of early detection and treatment of ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma by the ophthalmologist. Eye 2006;Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.4702637
11. Kymes SM, Kass MA, Anderson DR, Miller JP, Gordon MO; Ocular Hypertension Study Group. Management of ocular hypertension: A cost-effectiveness approach from the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:997-1008.
12. Jampel HD, Friedman DS, Quigley H, Miller R. Correlation of the binocular visual field with patient assessment of vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:1059-1067.
13. Ramrattan RS, Wolfs RCW, Panda-Jonas S, Jonas JB, Bakker D, Pols HA, Hofman A, De Jong PTVM. Prevalence and causes of visual field loss in the elderly and associations with impairment in daily functioning: The Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1788-1794.
14. McGwin G, Xie AY, Mays A, Joiner W, Decarlo DK, Hall T A, Owsley C. Visual field defects and the risk of motor vehicle collisions among patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:4437-4441.
15. Haymes SA, LeBlanc RP, Nicolela MT, Lavender SA, Chauhan BC. Risk of falls and motor vehicle collisions in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:1149-1155.
16. Jampel HD, Schwartz A, Pollack I, Abrams D, Weiss H, Miller R. Glaucoma patients' assessment of their visual function and quality of life. J Glaucoma 2002;11:154-163.
17. Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergstrom A, Chen E, Linden C, Alm A. Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: What drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006;84:363-371.
18. Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care 2005;43:736-749.
19. Magacho L, Lima FE, Nery ACS, Sagawa A, Magacho B, Avila MP. Quality of life in glaucoma patients: Regression analysis and correlation with possible modifiers. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2004;11:263-270.
20. National Research Council. Visual Impairments: Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits. Committee on Disability Determination for Individuals with Visual Impairments. Peter Lennie, Susan B. Van Hemel, eds. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.
21. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA. Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry for Detection of Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss. Am J Ophthal 2000;129:314-322.
22. Nelson-Quigg JM, Cello K, Johnson CA. Predicting binocular visual field sensitivity from monocular visual field results. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:2212-2221.
23. Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Balestrery FG. Acuity profile perimetry. Description of technique and preliminary clinical trials. Arch Ophthalmol 1979;97:260-272.
24. Johnson CA, Keltner, JL, Balestrery FG. Static and acuity profile perimetry at various adaptation levels. Documenta Ophthalmologica 1981;50:371-388.
25. Sloan LL. Measurement of visual acuity. A critical review. Arch Ophthalmol 1951;45:704.
26. Krekelberg B, Van Wezel RJA, Albright TD. Interactions between speed and contrast tuning in the middle temporal area: Implications for the neural code for speed. J Neurosci 2006;26:8988-8998.
27. Cleary PA, Beck RW, Bourque LB, Backlund JYC, Miskala PH. Visual Symptoms after Optic Neuritis Results from the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. J Neuro-Ophthal 1997;17:18-28.
28. Aulhorn E, Harms H. Visual Perimetry (Chapter 5). In, Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Vol. VII/4: Visual Psychophysics. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1972;pp. 102-145.
29. Johnson CA, Casson EJ. Effects of luminance, contrast and blur on visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 1995;72:864-869.