Literature DB >> 23613506

Are practical recommendations practiced? A national multi-centre cross-sectional study on frequency of visual field testing in glaucoma.

Simon S M Fung1, Claire Lemer, Richard A Russell, Rizwan Malik, David P Crabb.   

Abstract

AIM: To estimate current clinical practice for frequency of visual field (VF) monitoring in glaucoma in England.
METHODS: A cross-sectional review of all patients with chronic open angle glaucoma (COAG) attending specialist glaucoma clinics at six hospitals in England was performed. The number of VF tests undertaken prior to the study date and during the first 2 years since diagnosis were recorded and compared with European Glaucoma Society (EGS) guidelines for newly-diagnosed patients. Clinician-requested monitoring intervals were compared with intervals from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines, and the relationships with disease severity, intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma progression status were reviewed.
RESULTS: One-hundred and four patients with COAG were included. 73 patients had at least 2 years of follow-up. Median (IQR) total number of VF tests and in the first 2 years of diagnosis were 4 (2-7) and 2 (2-3), respectively. No patients met EGS guidelines, but 87% of patients had their monitoring intervals requested in accordance with NICE guidelines. These intervals were not related to disease severity or VF stability (Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.25) but shortened significantly when IOP control was inadequate or when the overall clinical impression was disease progression (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Most newly-diagnosed COAG patients receive less than three VFs in the first 2 years following diagnosis and an average of 0.7 VF per year over the duration of follow-up.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Field of vision; Glaucoma; Public health

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23613506     DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302903

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


  19 in total

1.  Are rates of vision loss in patients in English glaucoma clinics slowing down over time? Trends from a decade of data.

Authors:  T Boodhna; L J Saunders; D P Crabb
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Why Do People (Still) Go Blind from Glaucoma?

Authors:  Remo Susanna; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; George A Cioffi; Robert Ritch
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 3.283

Review 3.  Functional assessment of glaucoma: Uncovering progression.

Authors:  Rongrong Hu; Lyne Racette; Kelly S Chen; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-04-26       Impact factor: 6.048

4.  A view on glaucoma--are we seeing it clearly?

Authors:  D P Crabb
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  Measuring visual field progression in the central 10 degrees using additional information from central 24 degrees visual fields and 'lasso regression'.

Authors:  Ryo Asaoka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  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

7.  What's on TV? Detecting age-related neurodegenerative eye disease using eye movement scanpaths.

Authors:  David P Crabb; Nicholas D Smith; Haogang Zhu
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 5.750

8.  More frequent, more costly? Health economic modelling aspects of monitoring glaucoma patients in England.

Authors:  Trishal Boodhna; David P Crabb
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-10-22       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 9.  The value of visual field testing in the era of advanced imaging: clinical and psychophysical perspectives.

Authors:  Jack Phu; Sieu K Khuu; Michael Yapp; Nagi Assaad; Michael P Hennessy; Michael Kalloniatis
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 2.742

10.  Can the appropriateness of eye care be measured through cross-sectional retrospective patient record review in eye care practices in Australia? The iCareTrack feasibility study.

Authors:  Kam Chun Ho; Dian Rahardjo; Fiona Stapleton; Louise Wiles; Peter D Hibbert; Andrew J R White; Andrew Hayen; Isabelle Jalbert
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.