Stuart K Gardiner1, Shaban Demirel. 1. Devers Eye Institute, Discoveries In Sight Laboratories, Legacy Health System, Portland, Oregon 97232, USA. sgardiner@deverseye.org
Abstract
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<or=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.
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<or=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.
Authors: Brad Fortune; Shaban Demirel; Xian Zhang; Donald C Hood; Emily Patterson; Annisa Jamil; Steven L Mansberger; George A Cioffi; Chris A Johnson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Steven L Mansberger; Beth Edmunds; Chris A Johnson; Kyle J Kent; George A Cioffi Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: B C Chauhan; D F Garway-Heath; F J Goñi; L Rossetti; B Bengtsson; A C Viswanathan; A Heijl Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Richard A Russell; Rizwan Malik; Balwantray C Chauhan; David P Crabb; David F Garway-Heath Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 4.799