Use of subjective and objective criteria to categorise visual disability.
Indian J Ophthalmol
;
2014 Apr ; 62 (4): 400-406
Article
in English
| IMSEAR
| ID: sea-155588
ABSTRACT
Context Visual disability is categorised using objective criteria. Subjective measures are not considered. Aim:
To use subjective criteria along with objective ones to categorise visual disability. Settings andDesign:
Ophthalmology out‑patient department; teaching hospital; observational study. Material andMethods:
Consecutive persons aged >25 years, with vision <20/20 (in one or both eyes) due to chronic conditions, like cataract and refractive errors, were categorized into 11 groups of increasing disability; group‑zero normal range of vision, to group‑X no perception of light, bilaterally. Snellen’s vision; binocular contrast sensitivity (Pelli‑Robson chart); automated binocular visual field (Humphrey; Esterman test); and vision‑related quality of life (Indian Visual Function Questionnaire‑33; IND‑VFQ33) were recorded. StatisticalAnalysis:
SPSS version‑17; Kruskal‑wallis test was used to compare contrast sensitivity and visual fields across groups, and Mann‑Whitney U test for pair‑wise comparison (Bonferroni adjustment; P < 0.01). One‑way ANOVA compared quality of life data across groups; for pairwise significance, Dunnett T3 test was applied.Results:
In 226 patients, contrast sensitivity and visual fields were comparable for differing disability grades except when disability was severe (P < 0.001), or moderately severe (P < 0.01). Individual scales of IND‑VFQ33 were also mostly comparable; however, global scores showed a distinct pattern, being different for some disability grades but comparable for groups III (78.51 ± 6.86) and IV (82.64 ± 5.80), and groups IV and V (77.23 ± 3.22); these were merged to generate group 345; similarly, global scores were comparable for adjacent groups V and VI (72.53 ± 6.77), VI and VII (74.46 ± 4.32), and VII and VIII (69.12 ± 5.97); these were merged to generate group 5678; thereafter, contrast sensitivity and global and individual IND‑VFQ33 scores could differentiate between different grades of disability in the five new groups.Conclusions:
Subjective criteria made it possible to objectively reclassify visual disability. Visual disability grades could be redefined to accommodate all from zero‑100%.
Full text:
Available
Index:
IMSEAR (South-East Asia)
Type of study:
Observational study
Language:
English
Journal:
Indian J Ophthalmol
Year:
2014
Type:
Article
Similar
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS