Berno U H Overbeek1,2,3, Jan C M Lavrijsen4, Simon van Gaal5, Daniel Kondziella6,7, Henk J Eilander4, Raymond T C M Koopmans4,8. 1. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. berno.overbeek@radboudumc.nl. 2. Kalorama, Beek Ubbergen, The Netherlands. berno.overbeek@radboudumc.nl. 3. Azora, Terborg, The Netherlands. berno.overbeek@radboudumc.nl. 4. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 7. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 8. Center for Specialized Geriatric Care, Joachim en Anna, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this Delphi study was to reach consensus about definition, operationalization and assessment of visual pursuit (VP) and visual fixation (VF). METHODS: In a three-round international Delphi study, clinical and research experts on disorders of consciousness indicated their level of agreement on 87 statements using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus for agreement was defined by a median of 5, an interquartile range (IQR) ≤ 1, and ≥ 80% indicating moderate or strong agreement. RESULTS: Forty-three experts from three continents participated, 32 completed all three rounds. For VP, the consensus statements with the highest levels of agreement were on the term 'pursuit of a visual stimulus', the description 'ability to follow visually in horizontal and/or vertical plane', a duration > 2 s, tracking in horizontal and vertical planes, and a frequency of more than 2 times per assessment. For VF, consensus statements with the highest levels of agreement were on the term 'sustained VF', the description 'sustained fixation in response to a salient stimulus', a duration of > 2 s and a frequency of 2 or more times per assessment. The assessment factors with the highest levels of agreement were personalized stimuli, the use of eye tracking technology, a patient dependent time of assessment, sufficient environmental light, upright posture, and the necessity to exclude ocular/oculomotor problems. CONCLUSION: This first international Delphi study on VP and VF in patients with disorders of consciousness provides provisional operational definitions and an overview of the most relevant assessment factors.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this Delphi study was to reach consensus about definition, operationalization and assessment of visual pursuit (VP) and visual fixation (VF). METHODS: In a three-round international Delphi study, clinical and research experts on disorders of consciousness indicated their level of agreement on 87 statements using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus for agreement was defined by a median of 5, an interquartile range (IQR) ≤ 1, and ≥ 80% indicating moderate or strong agreement. RESULTS: Forty-three experts from three continents participated, 32 completed all three rounds. For VP, the consensus statements with the highest levels of agreement were on the term 'pursuit of a visual stimulus', the description 'ability to follow visually in horizontal and/or vertical plane', a duration > 2 s, tracking in horizontal and vertical planes, and a frequency of more than 2 times per assessment. For VF, consensus statements with the highest levels of agreement were on the term 'sustained VF', the description 'sustained fixation in response to a salient stimulus', a duration of > 2 s and a frequency of 2 or more times per assessment. The assessment factors with the highest levels of agreement were personalized stimuli, the use of eye tracking technology, a patient dependent time of assessment, sufficient environmental light, upright posture, and the necessity to exclude ocular/oculomotor problems. CONCLUSION: This first international Delphi study on VP and VF in patients with disorders of consciousness provides provisional operational definitions and an overview of the most relevant assessment factors.
Authors: J Luauté; D Maucort-Boulch; L Tell; F Quelard; T Sarraf; J Iwaz; D Boisson; C Fischer Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Steven Laureys; Gastone G Celesia; Francois Cohadon; Jan Lavrijsen; José León-Carrión; Walter G Sannita; Leon Sazbon; Erich Schmutzhard; Klaus R von Wild; Adam Zeman; Giuliano Dolce Journal: BMC Med Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Joseph T Giacino; John Whyte; Emilia Bagiella; Kathleen Kalmar; Nancy Childs; Allen Khademi; Bernd Eifert; David Long; Douglas I Katz; Sooja Cho; Stuart A Yablon; Marianne Luther; Flora M Hammond; Annette Nordenbo; Paul Novak; Walt Mercer; Petra Maurer-Karattup; Mark Sherer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph T Giacino; S Ashwal; N Childs; R Cranford; B Jennett; D I Katz; J P Kelly; J H Rosenberg; J Whyte; R D Zafonte; N D Zasler Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-02-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ronald T Seel; Jennifer Douglas; Andrew C Dennison; Sarah Heaner; Kathryn Farris; Catherine Rogers Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 3.966