Binocular Measures of Visual Acuity and Visual Field versus Binocular Approximations.
Binocular Measures of Visual Acuity and Visual Field versus Binocular Approximations.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.02.013
复制
发表时间：
2017-07
期刊：
影响因子：
13.7
通讯作者：
Janz NK
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Musch DC;Niziol LM;Gillespie BW;Lichter PR;Janz NK
使用合作初始青光眼治疗研究（CIGTS）的数据评估双眼视觉功能测试与双眼近似值的关系。病例系列基于来自CIGTS的607例新诊断开角型青光眼受试者的临床试验的现有数据。单眼视野（VF）和视力（VA）测试在基线和每6个月后。研究3年后，在CIGTS方案中增加了双眼视功能测试（Esterman VF评分;双眼VA）。双眼视功能的双眼近似值为好/差眼、平均眼、好/差位置、双眼总和/逐点双眼总和。用Pearson相关系数（r）评估双眼测试和代表双眼视功能的双眼近似值之间的关系，以及视觉相关生活质量[VR-QOL;视觉活动问卷（VAQ）和国家眼科研究所视觉功能问卷（NEI-VAS25）]与双眼测试或双眼近似值之间的关系。双眼视功能（VF和VA）和VR-QOL 575例受试者至少进行了一次双眼视功能测试。Esterman评分与所有双眼VF近似值显著相关，r值范围为0.31（较差眼平均偏差，MD）至0.42（较好眼MD，所有p <0.0001）。双眼视力与双眼近似值的相关性更强，r值范围从0.65（较差的眼睛视力）到0.80（双眼总和，所有p <0.0001）。在9个分量表中的7个分量表中，VAQ和Esterman评分之间的相关性（r =-0.14至0.25，所有p <0.05）比与所有7个双眼近似值的相关性更强。相比之下，VAQ和双眼VA之间的相关性（r =-0.07至-0.21）在所有分量表中均弱于视力较好的眼睛、视力一般的眼睛和双眼VA总和（r =-0.12至-0.25），但与视力较差的眼睛没有差异。这些趋势也被发现在相关的子量表的NEI-VEGF25。我们发现，在临床环境中，双眼视力测试作为一种近似患者报告的视觉功能的手段，其益处有限。相比之下，我们发现进行双眼VF测试有一些好处，因为结果与报告的功能比双眼近似更密切相关。
To assess the relationship of binocular visual function tests with binocular approximations, using data from the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS). Case series based on existing data from a clinical trial 607 subjects with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma from the CIGTS. Monocular visual field (VF) and visual acuity (VA) tests were taken at baseline and every 6 months thereafter. Binocular tests of visual function (Esterman VF score; binocular VA) were added to the CIGTS protocol 3 years into study. The binocular approximations of binocular visual function were better/worse eye, average eye, better/worse location, and binocular summation/pointwise binocular summation. Associations between binocular tests and binocular approximations to represent binocular visual function were assessed with Pearson’s correlations (r), as was the relationship between vision-related quality of life [VR-QOL; Visual Activities Questionnaire (VAQ) and the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ25)] and binocular tests or binocular approximations of visual function. Binocular visual function (VF and VA), and VR-QOL 575 subjects had at least one binocular visual function test. The Esterman score was significantly correlated with all binocular approximations of VF, with r-values ranging from 0.31 (worse eye mean deviation, MD) to 0.42 (better eye MD, all p<0.0001). Binocular VA showed stronger correlations with binocular approximations, with r-values ranging from 0.65 (worse eye VA) to 0.80 (binocular summation, all p<0.0001). Correlations between the VAQ and Esterman score were stronger in 7 of 9 subscales (r =−0.14 to −0.25, all p<0.05) than correlations with all 7 binocular approximations. In contrast, correlations between the VAQ and binocular VA (r=−0.07 to −0.21) were weaker in all subscales than those with better eye, average eye, and binocular summation of VA (r=−0.12 to −0.25), but not different from worse eye. These trends were also found in relevant subscales of the NEI-VFQ25. We found limited benefit in binocular testing of VA in the clinical setting as a means of approximating a patient’s reported visual functioning. In contrast, we found some benefit in performing binocular VF testing, as the results correlated more closely with reported functioning than binocular approximations.