4.6 Article

Self-reported visual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: New data from the VFQ-25 and development of an MS-specific vision questionnaire

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 133, 期 5, 页码 686-692

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01337-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY00351] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To examine vision specific health,related quality of life in a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) using the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25), and to identify content areas for a brief MS-specific vision questionnaire. DESIGN: Cross,sectional survey. METHODS: The VFQ-25 and a modified version of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial (ONTT) Patient Questionnaire were administered by in,person interview to 80 patients at the University of Pennsylvania MS Center. Binocular visual acuities were obtained following a standard protocol using retroilluminated Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts. RESULTS: Despite a median binocular visual acuity of 20/16 (20/12.5-20/250), VFQ-25 subscale scores in the MS cohort were significantly lower (worse) compared with those of a published reference group of eye disease, free patients (P = .0001-0.009, two-tailed t tests). Rank-correlations of VFQ-25 composite (overall) scores with visual acuity were modest, but significant (r(s) = 0.33, P = .003), supporting construct validity for VFQ-25 scores in MS populations. Seven additional aspects of self-reported visual dysfunction in MS were also identified. 0 CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MS have a high degree of self,reported visual dysfunction that is not entirely captured by visual acuity. The VFQ-25 is an effective measure of self-reported visual loss in MS. A brief MS,specific vision questionnaire may provide additional useful information when administered concurrently with the VFQ-25 in future investigations of MS and other neuroophthalmologic disorders.

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

4.6
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