Assessment of Patient Opinions of Different Clinical Tests Used in the Management of Glaucoma

Ophthalmology

Volumn 115, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 2127-2131

  Gardiner, Stuart K ^a   Demirel, Shaban ^a  

^a DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED PERIMETRY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; EYE PHOTOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; OPTIC NERVE; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERIMETRY; TOMOGRAPHY; TONOMETRY, OCULAR;

EID: 56549091045     PISSN: 01616420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.08.013     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Chauhan B.C., Garway-Heath D.F., Goni F.J., et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 92 (2008) 569-573
2. Parrish II R.K., Gedde S.J., Scott I.U., et al. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 115 (1997) 1447-1455
3. Nelson P., Aspinall P., and O'Brien C. Patients' perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol 83 (1999) 546-552
4. Janz N., Wren P., Lichter P., et al., CIGTS Study Group. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: interim quality of life findings after initial medical or surgical treatment of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 108 (2001) 1954-1965
5. Freeman E., Munoz B., West S., et al. Glaucoma and quality of life: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Ophthalmology 115 (2008) 233-238
6. Mansberger S.L., Edmunds B., Johnson C.A., et al. Community visual field screening: prevalence of follow-up and factors associated with follow-up of participants with abnormal frequency doubling perimetry technology results. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 14 (2007) 134-140
7. Kosoko O., Quigley H.A., Vitale S., et al. Risk factors for noncompliance with glaucoma follow-up visits in a residents' eye clinic. Ophthalmology 105 (1998) 2105-2111
8. Ngan R., Lam D.L., Mudumbai R.C., and Chen P.P. Risk factors for noncompliance with follow-up among normal-tension glaucoma suspects. Am J Ophthalmol 144 (2007) 310-311
9. Strong N.P. How optometrists screen for glaucoma: a survey. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 12 (1992) 3-7
10. Tuck M.W., and Crick R.P. Use of visual field tests in glaucoma detection by optometrists in England and Wales. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 14 (1994) 227-231
11. Bjerre A., Grigg J.R., Parry N.R., and Henson D.B. Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45 (2004) 4035-4040
12. Gardiner S.K., Johnson C.A., and Spry P.G. Normal age-related sensitivity loss for a variety of visual functions throughout the visual field. Optom Vis Sci 83 (2006) 438-443
13. Spry P.G., Johnson C.A., Mansberger S.L., and Cioffi G.A. Psychophysical investigation of ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma 14 (2005) 11-19
14. Gardiner S.K., Johnson C.A., and Cioffi G.A. Evaluation of the structure-function relationship in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46 (2005) 3712-3717
15. Anderson D.R., and Patella V.M. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. (1999), Mosby, St. Louis, MO 147-59
16. Bengtsson B., Olsson J., Heijl A., and Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 75 (1997) 368-375
17. Bengtsson B. A new rapid threshold algorithm for short-wavelength automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44 (2003) 1388-1394
18. Bengtsson B., and Heijl A. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44 (2003) 5029-5034
19. Anderson A.J., Johnson C.A., Fingeret M., et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46 (2005) 1540-1548
20. Artes P.H., Hutchison D.M., Nicolela M.T., et al. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46 (2005) 2451-2457
21. Fortune B., Demirel S., Zhang X., et al. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48 (2007) 1173-1180
22. Kwon Y.H., Park H.J., Jap A., et al. Test-retest variability of blue-on-yellow perimetry is greater than white-on-white perimetry in normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 126 (1998) 29-36
23. Gilmore E.D., Hudson C., Nrusimhadevara R.K., and Harvey P.T. Frequency of seeing characteristics of the short wavelength sensitive visual pathway in clinically normal subjects and diabetic patients with focal sensitivity loss. Br J Ophthalmol 89 (2005) 1462-1467
24. Spry P.G., Johnson C.A., McKendrick A.M., and Turpin A. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42 (2001) 1404-1410