Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ADVS:

Activities of Daily Vision Scale

CIGTS:

Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study

COMTOL:

Comparison of Ophthalmic Medications for Tolerability

EDSQ:

Eye Drop Satisfaction Questionnaire

GDI:

Glaucoma Disability Index

GHPI:

Glaucoma Health Perceptions Indices

GSS:

Glaucoma Symptom Scale

IVI:

Impact of Vision Impairment

IND-VFQ33:

Indian Visual Function Questionnaire 33

LVQOL:

Low Vision Quality Of Life Questionnaire

NEI-VFQ:

National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire

OSDI:

Ocular Surface Disease Index

PRO:

Patient-Reported Outcomes

QOL:

Quality Of Life

QLVFQ:

Quality of Life and Vision Function Questionnaire

SQOL DVI:

Scale of QOL for Disease with Visual Impairment

SHPC:

Symptom and Health Problem Checklist

TSS-IOP:

Treatment Satisfaction Survey-Intraocular Pressure

VALDA:

Vision associated limitations in daily activities

VCM1:

Vision Core Measure 1

VAQ:

Visual Activities Questionnaire

WHO ICF:

World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

References

  1. Bradley, C. (2006). Feedback on the FDA’s February 2006 draft guidance on patient reported outcome (PRO) measures from a developer of PRO measures. Health and Quality of life outcomes, 4, 78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M. J., & Jones, D. R. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 2(14), i–74.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Spaeth, G., Walt, J., & Keener, J. (2006). Evaluation of quality of life for patients with glaucoma. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 141, S3–S14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Severn, P., Fraser, S., Finch, T., & May, C. (2008). Which quality of life score is best for glaucoma patients and why? BMC Ophthalmology, 8, 2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tripop, S., Pratheepawanit, N., Asawaphureekorn, S., Anutangkoon, W., & Inthayung, S. (2005). Health related quality of life instruments for glaucoma: A comprehensive review. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 88, S155–S162.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Altangerel, U., Spaeth, G. L., & Rhee, D. J. (2003). Visual function, disability, and psychological impact of glaucoma. Current opinion in ophthalmology, 14, 100–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee, B. L., & Wilson, M. R. (2000). Health-related quality of life in patients with cataract and glaucoma. Journal of Glaucoma, 9, 87–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bergner, M., & Rothman, M. L. (1987). Health status measures: An overview and guide for selection. Annual Review of Public Health, 8, 191–210.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. WHO. (2001). World Health Organization, international classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pesudovs, K., Burr, J. M., Harley, C., & Elliott, D. B. (2007). The development, assessment, and selection of Questionnaires. Optometry and Vision Science, 84(8), 663–674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Ustün, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37(4), 212–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mangione, C. M., Phillips, R. S., Seddon, J. M., Lawrence, M. G., Cook, E. F., Dailey, R., et al. (1992). (1992) Development of the ‘activities of daily vision scale’. A measure of visual functional status. Medical Care, 30(12), 1111–1126.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Valbuena, M., Bandeen-Roche, K., Rubin, G. S., Munoz, B., & West, S. K. (1999). Self-reported assessment of visual function in a population-based study: The SEE project. Salisbury eye evaluation. Investigative Ophthalmology Visual Science, 40(2), 280–288.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pesudovs, K., Garamendi, E., Keeves, J., & Elliott, D. (2003). The activities of daily vision scale for cataract surgery outcomes: Re-evaluating validity with rasch analysis. Investigative Ophthalmology Visual Science, 44(7), 2892–2899.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Steinberg, E. P., Tielsch, J. M., Schein, O. D., Javitt, J. C., Sharkey, P., Cassard, S. D., et al. (1994). The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Archives of Ophthalmology, 112(5), 630–638.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lamoureux, E. L., Chong, E. W., Thumboo, J., Wee, H. L., Wang, J. J., Saw, S. M., et al. (2008). Vision impairment, ocular conditions, and vision-specific function: The singapore malay eye study. Ophthalmology, 115(11), 1973–1981.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maharajah, K. R., Tet, C. M., Yaacob, A., Tajudin, L. S., & Foster, P. J. (2008). Modified Bahasa Malaysia version of VF-14 Questionnaire: Assessing the impact of glaucoma in rural area of Malaysia. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 36(3), 222–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ellwein, L. B., Fletcher, A., Negrel, A. D., & Thulasiraj, R. D. (1994). Quality of life assessment in blindness prevention interventions. International Ophthalmology, 18(5), 263–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fletcher, A. E., Ellwein, L. B., Selvaraj, S., Vijaykumar, V., Rahmathullah, R., & Thulasiraj, R. D. (1997). Measurements of vision function and quality of life in patients with cataracts in Southern India. Report of instrument development. Archives of Ophthalmology, 115(6), 767–774.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yu, Q., Li, S., Chen, H., Ye, T., & Ao, J. (1996). Development of the scale of quality of life for diseases with visual impairment. Yen Ko Hsueh Pao [Eye science], 12(1), 36–39.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lundstrm, M., Fregell, G., & Sjblom, A. (1994). Vision related daily life problems in patients waiting for a cataract extraction. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 78(8), 608–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lundstrm, M., Roos, P., Jensen, S., & Fregell, G. (1997). Catquest Questionnaire for use in cataract surgery care: Description, validity, and reliability. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 23(8), 1226–1236.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lundstrm, M., Stenevi, U., Thorburn, W., & Roos, P. (1998). Catquest Questionnaire for use in cataract surgery care: Assessment of surgical outcomes. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 24(7), 968–974.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mangione, C. M., Berry, S., Spritzer, K., Janz, N. K., Klein, R., Owsley, C., et al. (1998). Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: Results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116(2), 227–233.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mangione, C. M., Lee, P. P., Pitts, J., Gutierrez, P., Berry, S., & Hays, R. D. (1998). Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). NEI-VFQ field test investigators. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116(11), 1496–1504.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mangione, C. M., Lee, P. P., Gutierrez, P. R., Spritzer, K., Berry, S., Hays, R. D., et al. (2001). Development of the 25-item national eye institute visual function questionnaire. Archives of Ophthalmology, 119(7), 1050–1058.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hyman, L. G., Komaroff, E., Heijl, A., Bengtsson, B., Leske, M. C., & Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. (2005). Treatment and vision-related quality of life in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology, 112(9), 1505–1513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jampel, H. D. (2001). Glaucoma patients’ assessment of their visual function and quality of life. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society, 99, 301–317.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Jampel, H. D., Schwartz, A., Pollack, I., Abrams, D., Weiss, H., & Miller, R. (2002). Glaucoma patients assessment of their visual function and quality of life. Journal of Glaucoma, 11(2), 154–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jampel, H. D., Friedman, D. S., Quigley, H., & Miller, R. (2002). Correlation of the binocular visual field with patient assessment of vision. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 43(4), 1059–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Labiris, G., Katsanos, A., Fanariotis, M., Tsirouki, T., Pefkianaki, M., Chatzoulis, D., et al. (2008). Psychometric properties of the greek version of the NEI-VFQ 25. BMC Ophthalmology, 8, 4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Globe, D. R., Wu, J., Azen, S. P., Varma, R., & Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. (2004). The impact of visual impairment on self, reported visual functioning in Latinos—the los angeles latino eye study. Ophthalmology, 111(6), 1141–1149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Langelaan, M., Van Nispen, R. M. A., Knol, D. L., Moll, A. C., De Boer, M. R., Wouters, B., et al. (2007). Visual functioning questionnaire: Reevaluation of psychometric properties for a group of working-age adults. Optometry and Vision Science, 84(8), 775–784.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Magacho, L., Lima, F. E., Nery, A. C., Sagawa, A., Magacho, B., & Avila, M. P. (2004). Quality of life in glaucoma patients: Regression analysis and correlation with possible modifiers. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 11(4), 263–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nordmann, J. P., Viala, M., Sullivan, K., Arnould, B., & Berdeaux, G. (2004). Psychometric validation of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) french version: In a population of patients treated for ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Pharmacoeconomics, 22(3), 197–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rossi, G. C. M., Milano, G., & Tinelli, T. (2003). The Italian version of the 25-item national eye institute visual function questionnaire: Translation, validity, and reliability. Journal of Glaucoma, 12(3), 213–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Suzukamo, Y., Oshika, T., Yuzawa, M., Tokuda, Y., Tomidokoro, A., Oki, K., et al. (2005). Psychometric properties of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), Japanese version. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Toprak, A. B., Eser, E., Guler, C., Baser, F. E., & Mayali, H. (2005). Cross-validation of the Turkish version of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25). Ophthalmic Epidemiol, 12(4), 259–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Keeffe, J. E., Lam, D., Cheung, A., Dinh, T., & McCarty, C. A. (1998). Impact of vision impairment on functioning. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology, 26, S16–S18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Keeffe, J. E., McCarty, C. A., Hassell, J. B., & Gilbert, A. G. (1999). Description and measurement of handicap caused by vision impairment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology, 27(3–4), 184–186.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Hassell, J. B., Weih, L. M., & Keeffe, J. E. (2000). A measure of handicap for low vision rehabilitation: The impact of vision impairment profile. Clinical Experimental Ophthalmology, 28(3), 156–161.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Weih, L., Hassell, J., & Keeffe, J. (2002). Assessment of the impact of vision impairment. Investigative Ophthalmology Visual Science, 43(4), 927–935.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lamoureux, E., Pallant, J., Pesudovs, K., Hassell, J., & Keeffe, J. (2006). The impact of vision impairment questionnaire: An evaluation of its measurement properties using Rasch analysis. Investigative Ophthalmology Visual Science, 47(11), 4732–4741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lamoureux, E. L., Pallant, J. F., Pesudovs, K., Rees, G., Hassell, J. B., & Keeffe, J. E. (2007). The impact of vision impairment questionnaire: An assessment of its domain structure using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 48(3), 1001–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lamoureux, E. L., Ferraro, J. G., Pallant, J. F., Pesudovs, K., Rees, G., & Keeffe, J. E. (2007). Are standard instruments valid for the assessment of quality of life and symptoms in glaucoma? Optometry and Vision Science, 84(8), 789–796.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lu, D. W., Azuara-Blanco, A., Spaeth, G., Collur, S., Speicher, M. A., & Araujo, S. (1998). Visual limitations assessment in patients with glaucoma. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 82(11), 1347.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Turano, K. A., Geruschat, D. R., Stahl, J. W., & Massof, R. W. (1999). Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Investigative Ophthalmology Visual Science, 40(5), 865–877.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Turano, K. A., Massof, R. W., & Quigley, H. A. (2002). A self-assessment instrument designed for measuring independent mobility in RP patients: Generalizability to glaucoma patients. Investigative Ophthalmology Visual Science, 43(9), 2874–2881.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wolffsohn, J. S., & Cochrane, A. L. (2000). Design of the low vision quality-of-life questionnaire (LVQOL) and measuring the outcome of low-vision rehabilitation. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 130(6), 793–802.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Schiffman, R. M., Christianson, M. D., Jacobsen, G., Hirsch, J. D., & Reis, B. L. (2000). Reliability and validity of the ocular surface disease index. Archives of Ophthalmology, 118(5), 615–621.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Leung, E. W., Medeiros, F. A., & Weinreb, R. N. (2008). Prevalence of ocular surface disease in glaucoma patients. Journal of Glaucoma, 17(5), 350–355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sumi, I., Matsumoto, S., Okajima, O., & Shirato, S. (2000). The relationship between visual disability and visual scores in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology, 44(1), 82–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Sumi, I., Shirato, S., Matsumoto, S., & Araie, M. (2003). The relationship between visual disability and visual field in patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology, 110(2), 332–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Gupta, S. K., Viswanath, K., Thulasiraj, R. D., Murthy, G. V., Lamping, D. L., Smith, S. C., et al. (2005). The development of the indian vision function questionnaire: Field testing and psychometric evaluation. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 89(5), 621–627.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Murthy, G. V. S., Gupta, S. K., Thulasiraj, R. D., Viswanath, K., Donoghue, E. M., & Fletcher, A. E. (2005). The development of the indian vision function questionnaire: Questionnaire content. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 89(4), 498–503.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Ross, J. E., Bron, A. J., & Clarke, D. D. (1984). Contrast sensitivity and visual disability in chronic simple glaucoma. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 68(11), 821–827.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Ivers, R. Q., Mitchell, P., & Cumming, R. G. (2000). Visual function tests, eye disease and symptoms of visual disability: A population-based assessment. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 28(1), 41–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Carta, A., Braccio, L., Belpoliti, M., Soliani, L., Sartore, F., Gandolfi, S. A., et al. (1998). Self-assessment of the quality of vision: Association of questionnaire score with objective clinical tests. Current Eye Research, 17(5), 506–511.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Mills, R. P., & Drance, S. M. (1986). Esterman disability rating in severe glaucoma. Ophthalmology, 93(3), 371–378.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Viswanathan, A. C., McNaught, A. I., Poinoosawmy, D., Fontana, L., Crabb, D. P., Fitzke, F. W., et al. (1999). Severity and stability of glaucoma: Patient perception compared with objective measurement. Archives of Ophthalmology, 117(4), 450–454.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Odberg, T., Jakobsen, J. E., Hultgren, S. J., & Halseide, R. (2001). The impact of glaucoma on the quality of life of patients in Norway. I. Results from a self-administered questionnaire. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica, 79(2), 116–120.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Odberg, T., Jakobsen, J. E., Hultgren, S. J., & Halseide, R. (2001). The impact of glaucoma on the quality of life of patients in Norway. II. Patient response correlated to objective data. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica, 79(2), 121–124.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Bechetoille, A., Arnould, B., Bron, A., Baudouin, C., Renard, J. P., Sellem, E., et al. (2008). Measurement of health-related quality of life with glaucoma: Validation of the glau-QoL 36-item questionnaire. Acta Opthalmologica, 86(1), 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nelson, P., Aspinall, P., & O’Brien, C. (1999). Patients perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: A pilot study. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 83(5), 546–552.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Uenishi, Y., Tsumura, H., Miki, T., & Shiraki, K. (2003). Quality of life of elderly Japanese patients with glaucoma. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 9(1), 18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Barber, B. L., & Santanello, N. C. (1995). Relating spontaneous adverse experience reports to scores on a questionnaire querying tolerability. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 33(11), 598–604.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Barber, B. L., Strahlman, E. R., Laibovitz, R., Guess, H. A., & Reines, S. A. (1997). Validation of a questionnaire for comparing the tolerability of ophthalmic medications. Ophthalmology, 104(2), 334–342.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Lee, B. L., Gutierrez, P., Gordon, M., Wilson, M. R., Cioffi, G. A., Ritch, R., et al. (1998). The glaucoma symptom scale. A brief index of glaucoma-specific symptoms. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116(7), 861–866.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Lee, D. A. (2000). Efficacy of brimonidine as replacement therapy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Clinical Therapeutics, 22(1), 53–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Lee, D. A., & Gornbein, J. A. (2001). Effectiveness and safety of brimonidine as adjunctive therapy for patients with elevated intraocular pressure in a large, open-label community trial. Journal of Glaucoma, 10(3), 220–226.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Shibuya, T., Kashiwagi, K., & Tsukahara, S. (2003). Comparison of efficacy and tolerability between two gel-forming timolol maleate ophthalmic solutions in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Ophthalmologica, 217(1), 31–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Haverkamp, F., Wuensch, S., Fuchs, M., & Stewart, W. C. (2004). Intraocular pressure, safety and quality of life in glaucoma patients switching to latanoprost from adjunctive and monotherapy treatments. European Journal of Ophthalmology, 14(5), 407–415.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Abelson, M. B., Netland, P. A., & Chapin, M. J. (2001). Switching patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension from dual therapy to monotherapy: Evaluation of brimonidine as a model. Advanced Therapy, 18(6), 282–297.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Noecker, R. J., & Study Group for the Efficacy of Brimonidine in Geriatric patients. (2002). Brimonidine 0.2% as a replacement for beta blockers in geriatric patients with glaucoma. Advanced Therapy, 19(2), 91–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Atkinson, M., Stewart, W., Fain, J., Stewart, J., Dhawan, R., Mozaffari, E., et al. (2003). A new measure of patient satisfaction with ocular hypotensive medications: The treatment satisfaction survey for intraocular pressure (TSS-IOP). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Day, D. G., Sharpe, E. D., Atkinson, M. J., Stewart, J. A., & Stewart, W. C. (2006). The clinical validity of the treatment satisfaction survey for intraocular pressure in ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients. Eye, 20(5), 583–590.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Balkrishnan, R., Bond, J. B., Byerly, W. G., Camacho, F. T., & Anderson, R. T. (2003). Medication-related predictors of health-related quality of life in glaucoma patients enrolled in a medicare health maintenance organization. American Journal Geriatric Pharmacotherapy, 1(2), 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Dunker, S., Schmucker, A., Maier, H., & Latanoprost/Timolol Fixed Combination Study Group. (2007). Tolerability, quality of life, and persistency of use in patients with glaucoma who are switched to the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol. Advanced Therapy, 24(2), 376–386.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Nordmann, J. P., Denis, P., Vigneux, M., Trudeau, E., Guillemin, I., & Berdeaux, G. (2007). Development of the conceptual framework for the eye-drop satisfaction questionnaire (EDSQ) in glaucoma using a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Janz, N. K., Wren, P. A., Lichter, P. R., Musch, D. C., Gillespie, B. W., & Guire, K. E. (2001). Quality of life in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients: The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study. Ophthalmology, 108(5), 887–897.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Gilson, B. S., Gilson, J. S., Bergner, M., Bobbit, R. A., Kressel, S., Pollard, W. E., et al. (1975). The sickness impact profile. Development of an outcome measure of health care. American Journal of Public Health, 65(12), 1304–1310.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Bergner, M., Bobbitt, R. A., Carter, W. B., & Gilson, B. S. (1981). The sickness impact profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care, 19(8), 787–805.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Sloane, M. E., Ball, K., Owsley, C., Bruni, J. R., & Roenker, D. L. (1992). The Visual Activities Questionnaire: Developing an instrument for assessing problems in everyday visual tasks. Technical digest, non invasive assessment of the visual system, Topical meeting of the Optical Society of America, January. www.eyes.uab.edu/tools/VAQ.pdf.

  86. Leske, M. C., Heijl, A., Hyman, L., & Bengtsson, B. (1999). Early manifest glaucoma trial: Design and baseline data. Ophthalmology, 106(11), 2144–2153.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Gedde, S. J., Schiffman, J. C., Feuer, W. J., Parrish, R. K., 2nd, Heuer, D. K., Brandt, J. D., et al. (2005). The tube versus trabeculectomy study: Design and baseline characteristics of study patients. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 140(2), 275–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Frost, N. A., Sparrow, J. M., Durant, J. S., Donovan, J. L., Peters, T. J., & Brookes, S. T. (1998). Development of a questionnaire for measurement of vision-related quality of life. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 5, 185–210.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., Amman, E., Kollerits, B., Chatterji, S., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34, 205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Peter Fayers (Department of Public Health, University of Aberdeen) for commenting on the draft; Manoharan Shunmugam (NHS Grampian), Konrad Pesudovs and Lynda Caudle (NHMRC Centre for Clinical Eye Research at Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide) for initial data abstraction, and Cynthia Fraser (Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen) for developing and running the literature search strategies. The Health Services Research Unit receives a core grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. Jemaima Che Hamzah is funded by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding bodies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Jemaima Che Hamzah, Jennifer M. Burr, Craig R. Ramsay, Augusto Azuara-Blanco & Maria Prior

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Road, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, Scotland, UK

    Jemaima Che Hamzah & Augusto Azuara-Blanco

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, 9th Floor, Jalan Ya’acob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, 56000, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Jemaima Che Hamzah

Authors
  1. Jemaima Che Hamzah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer M. Burr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Craig R. Ramsay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Augusto Azuara-Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Prior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jemaima Che Hamzah.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Che Hamzah, J., Burr, J.M., Ramsay, C.R. et al. Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research: a systematic review of vision instruments. Qual Life Res 20, 1141–1158 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9831-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9831-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation