IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0184230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of patient perception of glaucomatous visual field loss and its association with disease severity using Amsler grid

Author

Listed:
  • Kenji Fujitani
  • Daniel Su
  • Mark P Ghassibi
  • Joseph L Simonson
  • Jeffrey M Liebmann
  • Robert Ritch
  • Sung Chul Park

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate patients’ perception of glaucomatous VF loss and its association with glaucoma severity using the Amsler grid test. Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, glaucoma patients with abnormal 10–2 Humphrey Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm-standard VF tests were enrolled consecutively. All patients underwent a black-on-white Amsler grid test for each eligible eye. They were asked to outline any perceived scotomas (areas with abnormal grid lines) on the grid and then describe verbally their perception of the scotomas. Examiners asked patients to clarify their descriptions. All descriptions used by patients were recorded in their own words, which were then sorted into descriptor categories according to similar themes. The number of descriptor categories was counted for each eye. 10–2 VF mean deviation (MD) was compared among eyes that reported different number of descriptor categories. The mean 10–2 VF MD values were compared among different descriptor categories. Results: Fifty glaucoma patients (88 eyes) were included. Patients used a total of 44 different descriptors for their scotomas. Patients’ descriptors were classified into categories that incorporated similar themes, resulting in 4 overarching descriptor categories: Missing/White, Blurry/Gray, Black, and Not Aware. Fifty-two eyes reported one descriptor category and 19 eyes reported two descriptor categories (mean number of descriptor categories = 1.27±0.45). Eyes that reported two descriptor categories had worse VF MD than those that reported one (-17.86±10.31 dB vs. -12.08±7.53 dB; p = 0.012). When eyes were organized according to its combination of descriptor categories, each eye naturally sorted into one of the following 5 groups, in frequency order: Missing/White (27 eyes; 31%), Blurry/Gray (21 eyes; 24%), combined Missing/White and Blurry/Gray (19 eyes; 21%), Not Aware (17 eyes; 19%), and Black (4 eyes; 5%). The mean 10–2 VF MD severity order was Black (-21.18±10.59 dB), combined Missing/White and Blurry/Gray (-17.86±10.31 dB), Missing/White (-11.92±6.76 dB), Blurry/Gray (-10.55±7.03 dB), and Not Aware (-3.91±4.05 dB) (p

Suggested Citation

  • Kenji Fujitani & Daniel Su & Mark P Ghassibi & Joseph L Simonson & Jeffrey M Liebmann & Robert Ritch & Sung Chul Park, 2017. "Assessment of patient perception of glaucomatous visual field loss and its association with disease severity using Amsler grid," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-10, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0184230
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184230
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184230&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0184230?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0184230. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.