Literature DB >> 12543740

Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability.

H Sherafat1, P G D Spry, A Waldock, J M Sparrow, J P Diamond.   

Abstract

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of a visual field test educational video on the reliability of the first automated visual field test of new patients.
METHODS: A prospective, randomised, controlled trial of an educational video on visual field test reliability of patients referred to the hospital eye service for suspected glaucoma was undertaken. Patients were randomised to either watch an educational video or a control group with no video. The video group was shown a 4.5 minute audiovisual presentation to familiarize them with the various aspects of visual field examination with particular emphasis on sources of unreliability. Reliability was determined using standard criteria of fixation loss rate less than 20%, false positive responses less than 33%, and false negative responses less than 33%.
RESULTS: 244 patients were recruited; 112 in the video group and 132 in the control group with no significant between group difference in age, sex, and density of field defects. A significant improvement in reliability (p=0.015) was observed in the group exposed to the video with 85 (75.9%) patients having reliable results compared to 81 (61.4%) in the control group. The difference was not significant for the right (first tested) eye with 93 (83.0%) of the visual fields reliable in the video group compared to 106 (80.0%) in the control group (p = 0.583), but was significant for the left (second tested) eye with 97 (86.6 %) of the video group reliable versus 97 (73.5%) of the control group (p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a brief, audiovisual patient information guide on taking the visual field test produced an improvement in patient reliability for individuals tested for the first time. In this trial the use of the video had most of its impact by reducing the number of unreliable fields from the second tested eye.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12543740      PMCID: PMC1771517          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.2.153

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  15 in total

1.  Reliability indices for automated visual fields.

Authors:  L Hardage; R L Stamper
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 12.079

2.  Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests.

Authors:  J Katz; A Sommer
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1988-09

3.  Serial examination of the normal visual field using Octopus automated projection perimetry. Evidence for a learning effect.

Authors:  J M Wood; J M Wild; M K Hussey; S J Crews
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh)       Date:  1987-06

4.  Asymmetry and variation in the normal hill of vision.

Authors:  J Katz; A Sommer
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-01

5.  Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry.

Authors:  J M Nelson-Quigg; J D Twelker; C A Johnson
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1989-11

6.  Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing.

Authors:  J Katz; A Sommer; K Witt
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  The effect of ocular dominance on visual field testing.

Authors:  Paul G D Spry; Judy E Furber; Richard A Harrad
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 1.973

8.  Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry.

Authors:  A Heijl; S M Drance
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives.

Authors:  M Bickler-Bluth; G L Trick; A E Kolker; D G Cooper
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Continuous visual field test supervision may not always be necessary.

Authors:  R E Van Coevorden; R P Mills; Y Y Chen; H S Barnebey
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 12.079

View more
  5 in total

1.  Robot Assistants for Perimetry: A Study of Patient Experience and Performance.

Authors:  Allison M McKendrick; Astrid Zeman; Ping Liu; Dilek Aktepe; Illham Aden; Daisy Bhagat; Kieren Do; Huy D Nguyen; Andrew Turpin
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 3.283

2.  A qualitative investigation into patients' views on visual field testing for glaucoma monitoring.

Authors:  Fiona C Glen; Helen Baker; David P Crabb
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Prospective Assessment of Early Proton Therapy-Induced Optic Neuropathy in Patients With Intracranial, Orbital or Sinonasal Tumors: Impact of A Standardized Ophthalmological Follow Up.

Authors:  Marie Lecornu; Paul Lesueur; Julia Salleron; Jacques Balosso; Dinu Stefan; William Kao; Tiphaine Plouhinec; Anthony Vela; Pauline Dutheil; Jordan Bouter; Pierre-Alban Marty; Juliette Thariat; Jean-Claude Quintyn
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  A randomised controlled study of an audiovisual patient information intervention on informed consent and recruitment to cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  C Hutchison; C Cowan; T McMahon; J Paul
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-09-17       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 5.  Watch this space: a systematic review of the use of video-based media as a patient education tool in ophthalmology.

Authors:  Reem Farwana; Adam Sheriff; Haider Manzar; Mohammad Farwana; Ammar Yusuf; Ibrahim Sheriff
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 3.775

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.