Assessment of Patient Opinions of Different Clinical Tests Used in the Management of Glaucoma
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
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
© 2008 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

