A survey of attitudes of glaucoma subspecialists in England and Wales to visual field test intervals in relation to NICE guidelines

BMJ Open

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2013, Pages

  Malik, Rizwan ^a   Baker, Helen ^a,b   Russell, Richard A ^a,b   Crabb, David P ^b  

^a MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTAL MAIL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; VISUAL FIELD;

EID: 84878415829     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002067     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Gordon-Bennett PS, Ioannidis AS, Papageorgiou K, et al. A survey of investigations used for the management of glaucoma in hospital service in the United Kingdom. Eye (London) 2008;22:1410-18.
2. Weinreb RN, Khaw PT. Primary open-angle glaucoma. Lancet 2004;363:1711-20. (Pubitemid 38670330)
3. NICE. ed. CG85 Glaucoma: NICE guideline. In: Published clinical guidelines. 1st edn. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. London: National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
4. Society EG. Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma. 3rd edn. Savona, Italy: Editrice Dogma, 2008.
5. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:569-73. (Pubitemid 351497993)
6. Crabb DP, Garway-Heath DF. Intervals between visual field tests when monitoring the glaucomatous patient: wait-and-see approach. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:2770-6.
7. Tatham A, Murdoch I. The effect of appointment rescheduling on monitoring interval and patient attendance in the glaucoma outpatient clinic. Eye (London) 2012;26:729-33.
8. Crabb DP. Frequency of visual field testing when monitoring patients newly diagnosed with glaucoma. NIHR Health Services Programme. Version 1 ed: National Institute for Health Research, 2011:Project ref 10/2000/68.
9. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Zarei R, Caprioli J. Influence of visual field testing frequency on detection of glaucoma progression with trend analyses. Arch Ophthalmol 2011;129:1521-7.
10. Gardiner SK, Crabb DP. Frequency of testing for detecting visual field progression. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:560-4. (Pubitemid 34454504)
11. Jansonius NM. Progression detection in glaucoma can be made more efficient by using a variable interval between successive visual field tests. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007;245:1647-51. (Pubitemid 47491553)
12. Jansonius NM. Towards an optimal perimetric strategy for progression detection in glaucoma: from fixed-space to adaptive inter-test intervals. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006;244:390-3.
13. Sharma A, Jofre-Bonet M, Panca M, et al. Hospital-based glaucoma clinics: what are the costs to patients? Eye (Lond) 2010;24:999-1005.
14. Zhu H, Crabb DP, Fredette MJ, et al. Quantifying discordance between structure and function measurements in the clinical assessment of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2011;129:1167-74.
15. Russell RA, Malik R, Chauhan BC, et al. Improved estimates of visual field progression using Bayesian linear regression to integrate structural information in patients with ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:2760-9.
16. Medeiros FA, Leite MT, Zangwill LM, et al. Combining structural and functional measurements to improve detection of glaucoma progression using Bayesian hierarchical models. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:5794-803.