Literature DB >> 28764889

Can Home Monitoring Allow Earlier Detection of Rapid Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma?

Andrew J Anderson1, Phillip A Bedggood2, Yu Xiang George Kong3, Keith R Martin4, Algis J Vingrys2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recent developments in electronic technology are making it possible to home monitor the sensitivity of the central visual field using portable devices. We used simulations to investigate whether the higher test frequency afforded by home monitoring improves the early detection of rapid visual field loss in glaucoma and how any benefits might be affected by imperfect compliance or increased variability in the home-monitoring test.
DESIGN: Computer simulation, with parameter selection confirmed with a cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 43 patients with treated glaucoma (both open-angle and closed-angle), ocular hypertension or glaucoma suspects (mean age, 71 years; range, 37-89 years), were followed in the cohort study.
METHODS: We simulated series (n = 100 000) of visual fields for patients with stable glaucoma and patients with progressing glaucoma for 2 in-clinic (yearly and 6-monthly) and 3 home-monitoring (monthly, fortnightly, and weekly) schedules, each running over a 5-year period. Various percentages of home-monitored fields were omitted at random to simulate reduced compliance, and the variability of the home monitored fields also was manipulated. We used previously published variability characteristics for perimetry and confirmed their appropriateness for a home-monitoring device by measuring the device's retest variability at 2 months in a cohort of 43 patients. The criterion for flagging progression in our simulation was a significant slope of the ordinary least squares regression of a simulated patient's mean deviation (MD) data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity for identifying rapid visual field loss (-2 decibels [dB]/year loss of MD).
RESULTS: Although a sensitivity of 0.8 for rapid field loss was achieved after 2.5 years of 6-monthly testing in the clinic, weekly home monitoring achieved this by 0.9 years despite moderate test compliance of 63%. The improved performance of weekly home monitoring over 6-monthly clinical testing was retained even when home monitoring was assumed to produce more variable test results or be associated with low patient compliance.
CONCLUSIONS: Detecting rapid visual field progression may be improved using a home-monitoring strategy, even when compliance is imperfect. The cost-benefit of such an approach is yet to be demonstrated, however.
Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28764889     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.06.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  9 in total

1.  Portable Perimetry Using Eye-Tracking on a Tablet Computer-A Feasibility Assessment.

Authors:  Pete R Jones; Nicholas D Smith; Wei Bi; David P Crabb
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 3.283

2.  Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients.

Authors:  Harsh Kumar; Mithun Thulasidas
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-08-22       Impact factor: 1.909

3.  Refinement and preliminary evaluation of two tablet-based tests of real-world visual function.

Authors:  Pete R Jones; Iris Tigchelaar; Giorgia Demaria; Iain Wilson; Wei Bi; Deanna J Taylor; David P Crabb
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Acceptability of a home-based visual field test (Eyecatcher) for glaucoma home monitoring: a qualitative study of patients' views and experiences.

Authors:  Lee Jones; Tamsin Callaghan; Peter Campbell; Pete R Jones; Deanna J Taylor; Daniel S Asfaw; David F Edgar; David P Crabb
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Teaching home tonometry using a remote video link.

Authors:  Catriona C Barbour-Hastie; Andrew J Tatham
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 6.  Portable hardware & software technologies for addressing ophthalmic health disparities: A systematic review.

Authors:  Margarita Labkovich; Megan Paul; Eliott Kim; Randal A Serafini; Shreyas Lakhtakia; Aly A Valliani; Andrew J Warburton; Aashay Patel; Davis Zhou; Bonnie Sklar; James Chelnis; Ebrahim Elahi
Journal:  Digit Health       Date:  2022-05-06

7.  Test Reliability and Compliance to a Twelve-Month Visual Field Telemedicine Study in Glaucoma Patients.

Authors:  Selwyn Marc Prea; Algis Jonas Vingrys; George Yu Xiang Kong
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 4.964

8.  The Human Touch: Using a Webcam to Autonomously Monitor Compliance During Visual Field Assessments.

Authors:  Pete R Jones; Giorgia Demaria; Iris Tigchelaar; Daniel S Asfaw; David F Edgar; Peter Campbell; Tamsin Callaghan; David P Crabb
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 3.283

9.  Are you sure? The relationship between response certainty and performance in visual detection using a perimetry-style task.

Authors:  Phillip Bedggood; Aiza Ahmad; Adam Chen; Rachael Lim; Sadiqa Maqsudi; Andrew Metha
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 2.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.