4.1 Article

The 12-year Incidence of Glaucoma and Glaucoma-related Visual Field Loss in Italy: The Ponza Eye Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 1-6

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3182027796

关键词

glaucoma; incidence; visual field loss; risk factors

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Instruction, University and Research [9806216964]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess the 12-year incidence of glaucoma and glaucoma-related visual field loss in a population-based cohort study. Patients: In 2000, we reexamined 411 of the 581 survivors from the original Ponza eye study conducted in 1988. Methods: Primary open-angle (POAG), primary angle-closure (PACG), and secondary [pseudoexfoliative (PEX)] glaucoma were diagnosed according to the 3-tiered system of evidence developed by the International Society of Geographical and Epidemiological Ophthalmology. Severity of glaucoma was classified according to the Bascom-Palmer system. Visual loss was defined according to World Health Organization guidelines. Relative risk ratios were calculated for several variables. Results: The 12-year incidence of definite POAG was 3.8% (95% confidence intervals (CI), 2.3-6.2), that is, an average annual rate of 0.32%. Corresponding rates for PACG and PEX glaucoma were 0.5% (95% CI, 0.1-1.8) and 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3-2.2), respectively. Half the incident glaucoma cases (45%) had not been diagnosed earlier. Fifty-five percent of the incident POAG eyes had Bascom-Palmer stage 1 or 2 disease and 40% of the incident PACG or PEX glaucoma eyes had stage 3 or 4 disease. Seven of 20 incident glaucoma cases presented with monocular or binocular visual loss because of advanced visual field loss. Significant risk factors for POAG included high myopia (> 6.0 D), intraocular pressure >= 22mm Hg, and glaucoma family history. Conclusion: The average annual incidence of definite POAG in Ponzas lower than that reported in persons of African ancestry and higher than that observed in certain other white populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据