4.1 Article

Correlation of visual field with quality-of-life measures at diagnosis in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS)

Journal

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 192-198

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200106000-00008

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY 09100, EY 09140, EY 09141, EY 09639, EY 09150, EY 09142] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To examine the relationship between various clinical measures of visual field and patient-reported measures of symptoms and health status in a large cohort of patients with glaucoma at the time of diagnosis. Patients and Methods: The 607 patients in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study received standardized examinations of visual field at enrollment. In addition, they completed a telephone-administered, health-related quality-of-life questionnaire, which included the Visual Activities Questionnaire (VAQ) and a symptom and health problem checklist. Results: The Visual Activities Questionnaire total and subscale scores, particularly the peripheral vision subscale, correlated weakly but significantly with global visual field scores. Symptoms attributed to glaucoma also correlated weakly but significantly to visual field scores. Correlations with other visual field measures, including only central and pericentral test locations in the scores, did not strengthen the association, and simulating binocular visual field scores produced only slightly stronger correlations. Conclusions: At diagnosis, most patients were relatively free of glaucoma-related impairments. Various visual field measures derived from clinical visual field test data were only modestly associated with patients' perceptions of health-related quality of life. As the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study population is followed up longitudinally, it will be important to see whether these pertinent associations become stronger.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available