Mary Qiu1, Sophia Y Wang1, Kuldev Singh2, Shan C Lin3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: lins@vision.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the association between visual field defects and quality of life in the United States population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5186 participants in the 2005 through 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 40 years of age and older without a self-reported history of age-related macular degeneration or prior refractive surgery who had undergone frequency doubling technology perimetric testing. METHODS: Frequency doubling technology perimetry was performed in both eyes. Results from the better eye were used to categorize subjects as normal or having mild, moderate, or severe visual field loss. Subjects completed surveys about their visual and physical functioning ability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability pertaining to 6 vision-related activities, 2 visual function questions, and 5 physical functioning domains. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent of subjects had normal visual fields and 10%, 7%, and 2% demonstrated mild, moderate, and severe visual field defects, respectively. Subjects with greater severity of visual field defects had greater difficulty with vision-related activities. Subjects with severe visual field defects demonstrated the greatest odds of difficulty with all 6 activities. The 2 activities impacted most adversely were daytime driving in familiar places (odds ratio [OR], 12.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1-25.1) and noticing objects off to the side when walking (OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 4.7-12.7). Subjects with severe visual field defects had greater odds of worrying about eyesight (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.0-5.8) and being limited by vision in the time spent on daily activities (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.0-8.5). Subjects with severe visual field defects demonstrated the greatest odds of difficulty with 3 physical function domains, including activities of daily living (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.37-4.38), instrumental activities of daily living (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.37-4.38), as well as leisure and social activities (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.87-5.77). CONCLUSIONS: Greater severity of visual field abnormality was associated with significantly greater odds of disability with vision-related function and physical function. These findings support the necessity of routine screening to find those who may benefit from therapy to prevent progressive glaucomatous vision loss.
PURPOSE: To investigate the association between visual field defects and quality of life in the United States population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5186 participants in the 2005 through 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 40 years of age and older without a self-reported history of age-related macular degeneration or prior refractive surgery who had undergone frequency doubling technology perimetric testing. METHODS: Frequency doubling technology perimetry was performed in both eyes. Results from the better eye were used to categorize subjects as normal or having mild, moderate, or severe visual field loss. Subjects completed surveys about their visual and physical functioning ability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability pertaining to 6 vision-related activities, 2 visual function questions, and 5 physical functioning domains. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent of subjects had normal visual fields and 10%, 7%, and 2% demonstrated mild, moderate, and severe visual field defects, respectively. Subjects with greater severity of visual field defects had greater difficulty with vision-related activities. Subjects with severe visual field defects demonstrated the greatest odds of difficulty with all 6 activities. The 2 activities impacted most adversely were daytime driving in familiar places (odds ratio [OR], 12.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1-25.1) and noticing objects off to the side when walking (OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 4.7-12.7). Subjects with severe visual field defects had greater odds of worrying about eyesight (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.0-5.8) and being limited by vision in the time spent on daily activities (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.0-8.5). Subjects with severe visual field defects demonstrated the greatest odds of difficulty with 3 physical function domains, including activities of daily living (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.37-4.38), instrumental activities of daily living (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.37-4.38), as well as leisure and social activities (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.87-5.77). CONCLUSIONS: Greater severity of visual field abnormality was associated with significantly greater odds of disability with vision-related function and physical function. These findings support the necessity of routine screening to find those who may benefit from therapy to prevent progressive glaucomatous vision loss.
Authors: A van Gestel; C A B Webers; H J M Beckers; M C J M van Dongen; J L Severens; F Hendrikse; J S A G Schouten Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2010-11-05 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Kaushal M Kulkarni; Jason R Mayer; Luciano L Lorenzana; Jonathan S Myers; George L Spaeth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Chad Hochberg; Eugenio Maul; Emilie S Chan; Suzanne Van Landingham; Luigi Ferrucci; David S Friedman; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 4.799
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: Ricardo Y Abe; Carolina P B Gracitelli; Alberto Diniz-Filho; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-04-11 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Dominic J Grisafe; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Bruce S Burkemper; Benjamin Y Xu; Mina Torres; Rohit Varma Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 14.277
Authors: Lisa Hark; Michael Waisbourd; Jonathan S Myers; Jeffrey Henderer; John E Crews; Jinan B Saaddine; Jeanne Molineaux; Deiana Johnson; Harjeet Sembhi; Shayla Stratford; Ayman Suleiman; Laura Pizzi; George L Spaeth; L Jay Katz Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Matthew G Huddle; Jennifer A Deal; Bonnielin Swenor; Dane J Genther; Frank R Lin Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-07-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ivan Sencanic; Tatjana Gazibara; Jelena Dotlic; Miroslav Stamenkovic; Vesna Jaksic; Marija Bozic; Anita Grgurevic Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Naira Khachatryan; Maxwell Pistilli; Maureen G Maguire; Angela Y Chang; Marissa R Samuels; Kristen Mulvihill; Rebecca J Salowe; Joan M O'Brien Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2021-02-03
Authors: Dominic J Grisafe; Rohit Varma; Bruce S Burkemper; Benjamin Y Xu; Mina Torres; Alicia Fairbrother-Crisp; Cecilia M Patino; Roberta McKean-Cowdin Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 5.488