Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Qual Life Res. 2011 Sep;20(7):1141-58. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9831-1. Epub 2011 Jan 4.

Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research: a systematic review of vision instruments.

Author information

1
Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, Scotland, UK. r05jc8@abdn.ac.uk

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To identify vision Patient-Reported Outcomes instruments relevant to glaucoma and assess their content validity.

METHODS:

MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE and SCOPUS (to January 2009) were systematically searched. Observational studies or randomised controlled trials, published in English, reporting use of vision instruments in glaucoma studies involving adults were included. In addition, reference lists were scanned to identify additional studies describing development and/or validation to ascertain the final version of the instruments. Instruments' content was then mapped onto a theoretical framework, the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies for inclusion and quality assessed instrument content.

RESULTS:

Thirty-three instruments were identified. Instruments were categorised into thirteen vision status, two vision disability, one vision satisfaction, five glaucoma status, one glaucoma medication related to health status, five glaucoma medication side effects and six glaucoma medication satisfaction measures according to each instruments' content. The National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25, Impact of Vision Impairment and Treatment Satisfaction Survey-Intraocular Pressure had the highest number of positive ratings in the content validity assessment.

CONCLUSION:

This study provides a descriptive catalogue of vision-specific PRO instruments, to inform the choice of an appropriate measure of patient-reported outcomes in a glaucoma context.

PMID:
21203852
DOI:
10.1007/s11136-010-9831-1
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center