Relationships between measures of the ability to perform vision-related activities, vision-related quality of life, and clinical findings in patients with glaucoma

JAMA Ophthalmology

Volumn 133, Issue 12, 2015, Pages 1377-1385

  Ekici, Feyzahan ^a   Loh, Rebecca ^a   Waisbourd, Michael ^a   Sun, Yi ^a   Martinez, Patricia ^a   Nayak, Natasha ^a   Wizov, Sheryl S ^a   Hegarty, Sarah ^b   Hark, Lisa A ^a   Spaeth, George L ^a  

^a WILLS EYE HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPRESSED ASSESSMENT OF ABILITY RELATED TO VISION TEST; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DISC DAMAGE LIKELIHOOD SCALE; EYE DISEASE ASSESSMENT; EYE EXAMINATION; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MODIFIED GLAUCOMA SYMPTOM SCALE; NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE VISUAL FUNCTION QUESTIONNAIRE; NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE VISUAL FUNCTION QUESTIONNAIRE 25; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; PELLI ROBSON CONTRAST SENSITIVITY TEST; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RETINAL NERVE FIBER LAYER THICKNESS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SPAETH RICHMAN CONTRAST SENSITIVITY TEST; SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT; VISION; VISION RELATED PERFORMANCE; VISION RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABILITY; FOLLOW UP; MIDDLE AGED; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; VERY ELDERLY; VISUAL FIELD;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TOMOGRAPHY, OPTICAL COHERENCE; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; VISION TESTS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84949480748     PISSN: 21686165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.3426     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262-267.
2. Qiu M, Wang SY, Singh K, Lin SC. Association between visual field defects and quality of life in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(3):733-740.
3. McKean-Cowdin R, Wang Y, Wu J, Azen SP, Varma R; Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Impact of visual field loss on health-related quality of life in glaucoma: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(6):941-948.e1.
4. Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Rhee DJ. Visual function, disability, and psychological impact of glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003;14(2): 100-105.
5. Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O, Worton B, O'Brien C. Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(2):139-150.
6. Magacho L, Lima FE, Nery AC, Sagawa A, Magacho B, Avila MP. Quality of life in glaucoma patients: regression analysis and correlation with possible modifiers. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004;11 (4):263-270.
7. Spaeth G, Walt J, Keener J. Evaluation of quality of life for patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(1)(suppl):S3-S14.
8. Odberg T, Jakobsen JE, Hultgren SJ, Halseide R. The impact of glaucoma on the quality of life of patients in Norway, I: results from a self-administered questionnaire. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79(2):116-120.
9. Mills RP, Janz NK, Wren PA, Guire KE. Correlation of visual field with quality-of-life measures at diagnosis in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS). J Glaucoma. 2001;10(3): 192-198.
10. Richman J, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, et al. Relationships in glaucoma patients between standard vision tests, quality of life, and ability to perform daily activities. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2010;17(3):144-151.
11. Skalicky S, Goldberg I. Quality of life in glaucoma patients. US Ophthalmic Rev. 2013;6(1):6-9.
12. Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Steinmann WC. Assessment of function related to vision (AFREV). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2006;13(1):67-80.
13. Warrian KJ, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, Wizov SS, Spaeth GL. The assessment of disability related to vision performance-based measure in diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(5):852-860.e1.
14. Richman J, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, et al. Importance of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(12):1576-1582.
15. Lorenzana L, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, et al. A new method of assessing ability to perform activities of daily living: design, methods and baseline data. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2009;16(2): 107-114.
16. Kulkarni KM, Mayer JR, Lorenzana LL, Myers JS, Spaeth GL. Visual field staging systems in glaucoma and the activities of daily living. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(3):445-451.e3.
17. Lisboa R, Chun YS, Zangwill LM, et al. Association between rates of binocularvisual field loss and vision-related quality of life in patients with glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131(4):486-494.
18. Patino CM, Varma R, Azen SP, Conti DV, Nichol MB, McKean-Cowdin R; Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. The impact of change in visual field on health-related quality of life the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2011;118 (7):1310-1317
19. McKean-Cowdin R, Varma R, Wu J, Hays RD, Azen SP; Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Severity of visual field loss and health-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(6): 1013-1023.
20. Asaoka R, Crabb DP, Yamashita T, Russell RA, Wang YX, Garway-Heath DF. Patients have two eyes!: binocular versus better eye visual field indices. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(9): 7007-7011.
21. Wu P, Xi S, Xia H, Lu H, Guo W. Survey on vision-related quality of life and self-management among patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2014; 23(2):75-80.
22. Murata H, Hirasawa H, Aoyama Y, et al. Identifying areas of the visual field important for quality of life in patients with glaucoma. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58695.
23. van Gestel A, Webers CA, Beckers HJ, et al. The relationship between visual field loss in glaucoma and health-related quality-of-life. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(12):1759-1769.
24. Crews JE, Chou CF, Zhang X, Zack MM, Saaddine JB. Health-related quality of life among people aged >65 years with self-reported visual impairment: findings from the 2006-2010 behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21(5):287-296.
25. Wei H, Sawchyn AK, Myers JS, et al. A clinical method to assess the effect of visual loss on the ability to perform activities of daily living. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(5):735-741.
26. Waisbourd M, Parker S, Ekici F, et al. A prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study examining how glaucoma affects quality of life and visually-related function over4years: design and methodology. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015; 15:91.
27. Henderer JD, Liu C, Kesen M, et al. Reliability of the Disk Damage Likelihood Scale. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135(1):44-48.
28. Bayer A, Harasymowycz P, Henderer JD, Steinmann WG, Spaeth GL. Validity of a new disk grading scale for estimating glaucomatous damage: correlation with visual field damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133(6):758-763.
29. Danesh-Meyer HV, Ku JY, Papchenko TL, Jayasundera T, Hsiang JC, Gamble GD. Regional correlation of structure and function in glaucoma, using the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, Heidelberg retina tomograph, and visual fields. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(4):603-611.
30. Hornova J, Kuntz Navarro JB, Prasad A, Freitas DG, Nunes CM. Correlation of Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, visual field, and Heidelberg retina tomograph II in patients with glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008;18(5):739-747.
31. Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Liu C, et al. The disc damage likelihood scale: reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2002;100:181-185.
32. Richman J, Zangalli C, Lu L, Wizov SS, Spaeth E, Spaeth GL. The Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity test (SPARCS): design, reproducibility and ability to identify patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(1):16-20.
33. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD; National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire Field Test Investigators. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(7):1050-1058.
34. Lee BL, Gutierrez P, Gordon M, et al. The Glaucoma Symptom Scale: a brief index of glaucoma-specific symptoms. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116(7):861-866.
35. Westfall PHTR, Rom D, Wolfinger RD, Hocjberg Y. Multiple Comparisons and Multiple Tests Using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1999.
36. Hirneiss C. The impact of a better-seeing eye and a worse-seeing eye on vision-related quality of life. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1703-1709.
37. Chan EW, Chiang PP, Wong TY, et al. Impact of glaucoma severity and laterality on vision-specific functioning: the Singapore Malay eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(2):1169-1175.
38. Park SC, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Initial parafoveal versus peripheral scotomas in glaucoma: risk factors and visual field characteristics. Ophthalmology. 2011;118 (9):1782-1789.
39. Truong S, Cole N, Stapleton F, Golebiowski B. Sex hormones and the dry eye. Clin Exp Optom. 2014;97(4):324-336.
40. Paulsen AJ, Cruickshanks KJ, Fischer ME, et al. Dry eye in the Beaver Dam Offspring Study: prevalence, risk factors, and health-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(4):799-806.
41. Schaumberg DA, Uchino M, Christen WG, Semba RD, Buring JE, Li JZ. Patient reported differences in dry eye disease between men and women: impact, management, and patient satisfaction. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e76121.
42. Fernandez Lopez E, Karaca EE, Ekici F, Waisbourd M, Spaeth GL. Symptoms reported by patients with varying stages of glaucoma: review of 401 cases. Can J Ophthalmol. 2014;49(5):420-425.