| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
From the Department of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
PURPOSE. To determine which measures of the binocular visual field correlate best with the patient’s assessment of vision.
METHODS. Esterman binocular visual field testing and four other binocular visual field tests (designated peripheral 20 dB [p20], peripheral 22 dB [p22], central 24 dB [c24] and central 26 dB [c26]) were performed in 101 patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. Scores from these five tests, as well as binocular visual field scores calculated from monocular testing (best-location summation and probability summation), were correlated with performance on the National Eye Institute’s Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ)-25 and Short-Form (SF)-36 quality of life instruments, as well as with the linear rating scale utility test.
RESULTS. The mean percentage of correct responses was 87%, 69%, 59%, 78%, and 71% for the Esterman, p20, p22, c24, and c26 tests, respectively. The distribution of scores was much broader for the p20 and p22 tests than for the Esterman test. The mean decibels for the binocular visual fields calculated from the monocular visual fields were 21.5 ± 7.7 dB for the best-location algorithm and 25.1 ± 6.7 dB for the probability-summation algorithm. The binocular visual field score calculated with the best-location algorithm correlated better with the overall, general vision, distance activities, and peripheral vision domains of theVFQ-25 (partial correlation coefficients of 0.48, 0.48, 0.49, and 0.51, respectively) than did the probability-summation algorithm and all five binocular visual field tests. The best-location algorithm also had the strongest correlation with the linear rating scale utility test (partial correlation coefficient, 0.40).
CONCLUSIONS. In this sample of clinic-based patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma, a global score derived from a combination of two monocular fields correlated better with patient assessment of vision than did the Esterman and four novel binocular visual field tests.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  V. M. F. Owen, D. P. Crabb, E. T. White, A. C. Viswanathan, D. F. Garway-Heath, and R. A. Hitchings Glaucoma and Fitness to Drive: Using Binocular Visual Fields to Predict a Milestone to Blindness Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2008; 49(6): 2449 - 2455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Aspinall, Z. K. Johnson, A. Azuara-Blanco, A. Montarzino, R. Brice, and A. Vickers Evaluation of Quality of Life and Priorities of Patients with Glaucoma Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2008; 49(5): 1907 - 1915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B C Chauhan, D F Garway-Heath, F J Goni, L Rossetti, B Bengtsson, A C Viswanathan, and A Heijl Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2008; 92(4): 569 - 573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C M Chisholm, F G Rauscher, D C Crabb, L N Davies, M C Dunne, D F Edgar, J A Harlow, M James-Galton, A Petzold, G T Plant, et al. Assessing visual fields for driving in patients with paracentral scotomata Br. J. Ophthalmol., February 1, 2008; 92(2): 225 - 230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. A. Quigley Glaucoma: Macrocosm to Microcosm The Friedenwald Lecture Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., August 1, 2005; 46(8): 2663 - 2670. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D P Crabb, F W Fitzke, R A Hitchings, and A C Viswanathan A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive Br. J. Ophthalmol., September 1, 2004; 88(9): 1191 - 1196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
