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

Received 22 April 2008 ,Revised 4 August 2008 ,Accepted 5 August 2008.

References 

  1. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:569–573
  2. Parrish RK, Gedde SJ, Scott IU, et al. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:1447–1455
  3. Nelson P, Aspinall P, O'Brien C. Patients' perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:546–552
  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. 2001;108:1954–1965
  5. Freeman E, Munoz B, West S, et al. Glaucoma and quality of life: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:233–238
  6. Mansberger SL, Edmunds B, Johnson CA, 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. 2007;14:134–140
  7. Kosoko O, Quigley HA, Vitale S, et al. Risk factors for noncompliance with glaucoma follow-up visits in a residents' eye clinic. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:2105–2111
  8. Ngan R, Lam DL, Mudumbai RC, Chen PP. Risk factors for noncompliance with follow-up among normal-tension glaucoma suspects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:310–311
  9. Strong NP. How optometrists screen for glaucoma: a survey. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1992;12:3–7
  10. Tuck MW, Crick RP. Use of visual field tests in glaucoma detection by optometrists in England and Wales. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1994;14:227–231
  11. Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NR, Henson DB. Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:4035–4040
  12. Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Spry PG. Normal age-related sensitivity loss for a variety of visual functions throughout the visual field. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:438–443
  13. Spry PG, Johnson CA, Mansberger SL, Cioffi GA. Psychophysical investigation of ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:11–19
  14. Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA. Evaluation of the structure-function relationship in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:3712–3717
  15. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed.. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1999;147–59
  16. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:368–375
  17. Bengtsson B. A new rapid threshold algorithm for short-wavelength automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1388–1394
  18. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:5029–5034
  19. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA, Fingeret M, et al. Characteristics of the normative database for the Humphrey matrix perimeter. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1540–1548
  20. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, et al. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2451–2457
  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. 2007;48:1173–1180
  22. Kwon YH, Park HJ, 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. 1998;126:29–36
  23. Gilmore ED, Hudson C, Nrusimhadevara RK, Harvey PT. 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. 2005;89:1462–1467
  24. Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1404–1410

 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

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution