Ophthalmology
Volume 115, Issue 12 , Pages 2127-2131, December 2008

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

  • Stuart K. Gardiner, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Stuart K. Gardiner, PhD, Discoveries In Sight, Legacy Health System, 1225 NE 2nd Ave, Portland, OR 97232
  • ,
  • Shaban Demirel, PhD

Devers Eye Institute, Discoveries In Sight Laboratories, Legacy Health System, Portland, Oregon

Received 22 April 2008; received in revised form 4 August 2008; accepted 5 August 2008.

Purpose

To compare different tests used in the clinical management of glaucoma, with respect to the testing experience for patients undergoing each test.

Design

Evaluation of diagnostic tests.

Participants

A total of 101 subjects with high-risk ocular hypertension or early glaucoma.

Methods

Subjects were asked to give their opinion on 7 tests used clinically in glaucoma management by assigning each a score between 0 (absolute dislike) and 10 (perfect satisfaction).

Main Outcome Measure

Tests were ranked for each subject from 1 (favorite test) to 7 (least favorite test) on the basis of patient-assigned scores.

Results

Goldmann applanation tonometry for measurement of intraocular pressure was ranked significantly better than any other test (median rank 2.5, P≤0.01). This was followed by confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy using a Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (median rank 3.3); frequency doubling technology perimetry (4.0); multifocal visual evoked potential (4.0); optic nerve photography (4.3); and standard automated perimetry (4.8). Short-wavelength automated perimetry was ranked significantly worse than any other test (median rank 5.3, P≤0.04).

Conclusions

In many cases, statistically significant differences were found between the patients' opinions of the tests. Information on this issue has to date largely been anecdotal or subjective. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive study to assess and compare the patient experience when undergoing these tests.

Financial Disclosure(s)

The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Manuscript no. 2008-499.

 Financial Disclosure(s): No conflicting relationship exists for any author.

 Supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, Maryland) grant EY03424. The funding organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

PII: S0161-6420(08)00762-8

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.08.013

Ophthalmology
Volume 115, Issue 12 , Pages 2127-2131, December 2008