Repeat Visual Field Assessments for Patients with Normal Visual Field Tests at their Referring Optometric Practice

A. Alwitry, S. Hubbard
{"title":"Repeat Visual Field Assessments for Patients with Normal Visual Field Tests at their Referring Optometric Practice","authors":"A. Alwitry, S. Hubbard","doi":"10.23937/2378-346x/1410109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To determine whether a normal visual field assessment at a referring optometric practice is predictive of a normal visual field assessment at the hospital eye service and therefore whether there is any need to repeat it prior to first hospital visit. Methods: Between 1st January 2018 and 1st December 2018 all patients referred into Loughborough Community Hospital with a suspected diagnosis of glaucoma or ocular hypertension were booked for a visual field assessment prior to their initial new patient outpatient attendance. If the visual field test at the optician was documented as being “normal”, “within normal limits”, “no abnormality detected”, or “OK” on the referral letter then the patient was included in the study population. These patients underwent a visual field assessment with a Humphrey’s visual field analyser on a 24-2 SITA standard protocol. The outcome of the visual field test was documented including patient age, reliability indices, Mean Deviation and Pattern Standard Deviation. This data was statistically analysed by one of the authors. Results: Data on visual fields of 501 consecutive patients, 1002 eyes/visual field assessments were collected. The positive predictive value of a normal visual field at the patients referring optometrist was 97% for the right eye and 98% for the left eye. From all the visual field assessments the rate of a visual field where the glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) was outside normal limits (ONL) was 16% for the right eye and 7% for the left eye. There was very little observed association between the referral diagnosis, the IOP at referral, age of patient or the sex of the patient on the likelihood of having an abnormal visual field. Conclusion: Our data suggests that, in the presence of a normal visual field assessment at the referring optometry practice, there is very little yield of positive findings when the visual field test is repeated prior to clinical assessment. Visual field tests should instead be targeted at those patients with an abnormal visual field test on referral and those with a clinical indication for the test.","PeriodicalId":91712,"journal":{"name":"International journal of ophthalmology and clinical research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of ophthalmology and clinical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2378-346x/1410109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether a normal visual field assessment at a referring optometric practice is predictive of a normal visual field assessment at the hospital eye service and therefore whether there is any need to repeat it prior to first hospital visit. Methods: Between 1st January 2018 and 1st December 2018 all patients referred into Loughborough Community Hospital with a suspected diagnosis of glaucoma or ocular hypertension were booked for a visual field assessment prior to their initial new patient outpatient attendance. If the visual field test at the optician was documented as being “normal”, “within normal limits”, “no abnormality detected”, or “OK” on the referral letter then the patient was included in the study population. These patients underwent a visual field assessment with a Humphrey’s visual field analyser on a 24-2 SITA standard protocol. The outcome of the visual field test was documented including patient age, reliability indices, Mean Deviation and Pattern Standard Deviation. This data was statistically analysed by one of the authors. Results: Data on visual fields of 501 consecutive patients, 1002 eyes/visual field assessments were collected. The positive predictive value of a normal visual field at the patients referring optometrist was 97% for the right eye and 98% for the left eye. From all the visual field assessments the rate of a visual field where the glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) was outside normal limits (ONL) was 16% for the right eye and 7% for the left eye. There was very little observed association between the referral diagnosis, the IOP at referral, age of patient or the sex of the patient on the likelihood of having an abnormal visual field. Conclusion: Our data suggests that, in the presence of a normal visual field assessment at the referring optometry practice, there is very little yield of positive findings when the visual field test is repeated prior to clinical assessment. Visual field tests should instead be targeted at those patients with an abnormal visual field test on referral and those with a clinical indication for the test.
在参考验光实践中对视野测试正常的患者进行重复视野评估
目的:确定在转诊验光时的正常视野评估是否可以预测在医院眼科服务时的正常视野评估,因此是否有必要在首次就诊前重复一次。方法:在2018年1月1日至2018年12月1日期间,所有疑似诊断为青光眼或高眼压的患者在首次门诊就诊之前都预约了视野评估。如果在验光师处的视野测试记录为“正常”、“在正常范围内”、“未发现异常”或转诊信上的“OK”,则该患者被纳入研究人群。这些患者在24-2 SITA标准方案下使用汉弗莱视野分析仪进行视野评估。视野测试结果包括患者年龄、信度指标、平均偏差和模式标准差。其中一位作者对这些数据进行了统计分析。结果:收集了501例连续患者的视野数据,1002只眼/视野评估。在患者转诊验光师处,右眼正常视野的阳性预测值为97%,左眼为98%。在所有的视野评估中,右眼青光眼半视野测试(GHT)超出正常范围(ONL)的视野率为16%,左眼为7%。在转诊诊断、转诊时的眼压、患者的年龄或患者的性别与视野异常的可能性之间,几乎没有观察到任何关联。结论:我们的数据表明,在参考验光实践中有正常视野评估的情况下,在临床评估之前重复视野测试时,阳性结果很少。视野测试应该针对那些转诊时视野测试异常的患者和那些有临床指征的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信