PURPOSE: To determine which measures of the binocular visual field correlate best with the patient's assessment of vision. METHODS: Esterman binocular visual field testing and four other binocular visual field tests (designated peripheral 20 dB [p20], peripheral 22 dB [p22], central 24 dB [c24] and central 26 dB [c26]) were performed in 101 patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. Scores from these five tests, as well as binocular visual field scores calculated from monocular testing (best-location summation and probability summation), were correlated with performance on the National Eye Institute's Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ)-25 and Short-Form (SF)-36 quality of life instruments, as well as with the linear rating scale utility test. RESULTS: The mean percentage of correct responses was 87%, 69%, 59%, 78%, and 71% for the Esterman, p20, p22, c24, and c26 tests, respectively. The distribution of scores was much broader for the p20 and p22 tests than for the Esterman test. The mean decibels for the binocular visual fields calculated from the monocular visual fields were 21.5 +/- 7.7 dB for the best-location algorithm and 25.1 +/- 6.7 dB for the probability-summation algorithm. The binocular visual field score calculated with the best-location algorithm correlated better with the overall, general vision, distance activities, and peripheral vision domains of theVFQ-25 (partial correlation coefficients of 0.48, 0.48, 0.49, and 0.51, respectively) than did the probability-summation algorithm and all five binocular visual field tests. The best-location algorithm also had the strongest correlation with the linear rating scale utility test (partial correlation coefficient, 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of clinic-based patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma, a global score derived from a combination of two monocular fields correlated better with patient assessment of vision than did the Esterman and four novel binocular visual field tests.
PURPOSE: To determine which measures of the binocular visual field correlate best with the patient's assessment of vision. METHODS:Esterman binocular visual field testing and four other binocular visual field tests (designated peripheral 20 dB [p20], peripheral 22 dB [p22], central 24 dB [c24] and central 26 dB [c26]) were performed in 101 patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. Scores from these five tests, as well as binocular visual field scores calculated from monocular testing (best-location summation and probability summation), were correlated with performance on the National Eye Institute's Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ)-25 and Short-Form (SF)-36 quality of life instruments, as well as with the linear rating scale utility test. RESULTS: The mean percentage of correct responses was 87%, 69%, 59%, 78%, and 71% for the Esterman, p20, p22, c24, and c26 tests, respectively. The distribution of scores was much broader for the p20 and p22 tests than for the Esterman test. The mean decibels for the binocular visual fields calculated from the monocular visual fields were 21.5 +/- 7.7 dB for the best-location algorithm and 25.1 +/- 6.7 dB for the probability-summation algorithm. The binocular visual field score calculated with the best-location algorithm correlated better with the overall, general vision, distance activities, and peripheral vision domains of theVFQ-25 (partial correlation coefficients of 0.48, 0.48, 0.49, and 0.51, respectively) than did the probability-summation algorithm and all five binocular visual field tests. The best-location algorithm also had the strongest correlation with the linear rating scale utility test (partial correlation coefficient, 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of clinic-based patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma, a global score derived from a combination of two monocular fields correlated better with patient assessment of vision than did the Esterman and four novel binocular visual field tests.
Authors: David C Musch; Leslie M Niziol; Brenda W Gillespie; Paul R Lichter; Nancy K Janz Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ahmed M Sayed; Rashed Kashem; Mostafa Abdel-Mottaleb; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Taher K Eleiwa; Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb; Richard K Parrish; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ryo Asaoka; Richard A Russell; Rizwan Malik; David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Renato Lisboa; Yeoun Sook Chun; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Peter N Rosen; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christopher A Girkin; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: David P Crabb; Nicholas D Smith; Franziska G Rauscher; Catharine M Chisholm; John L Barbur; David F Edgar; David F Garway-Heath Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240