4.7 Article

Focussing both eyes on health outcomes: revisiting cataract surgery

期刊

BMC GERIATRICS
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2318-12-50

关键词

Cataract surgery; Visual function; Health outcomes

资金

  1. Canadian Institute of Health Research
  2. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The appropriateness of cataract surgery procedures has been questioned, the suggestion being that the surgery is sometimes undertaken too early in the disease progression. Our three study questions were: What is the level of visual impairment in patients scheduled for cataract surgery? What is the improvement following surgery? Given the thresholds for a minimal detectable change (MDC) and a minimal clinically important difference (MCID), do gains in visual function reach the MDC and MCID thresholds? Methods: The sample included a prospective cohort of cataract surgery patients from four Fraser Health Authority ophthalmologists. Visual function (VF-14) was assessed pre-operatively and at seven weeks post-operatively. Two groups from this cohort were included in this analysis: 'all first eyes' (cataract extraction on first eye) and 'both eyes' (cataract removed from both eyes). Descriptive statistics, change scores for VF-14 for each eye group and proportion of patients who reach the MDC and MCID are reported. Results: One hundred and forty-two patients are included in the 'all first eyes' analyses and 55 in the 'both eyes' analyses. The mean pre-operative VF-14 score for the 'all first eyes 'group was 86.7 (on a 0-100 scale where 100 is full visual function). The mean change in VF-14 for the 'both eyes' group was 7.5. Twenty-three percent of patients achieved improvements in visual function beyond the MCID threshold and 35% saw improvement beyond the MDC. Conclusions: Neither threshold level for MDC or MCID for the VF-14 scale was achieved for a majority of patients. A plausible explanation for this is the very high levels of pre-operative visual functioning.

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

4.7
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