Patient and technician perspectives following the introduction of frontloaded visual field testing in glaucoma assessment

References

• Jampel HD, Singh K, Lin SC, et al. Assessment of visual function in glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:986–1002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Khuu SK, Yapp M, et al. The value of visual field testing in the era of advanced imaging: clinical and psychophysical perspectives. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100:313–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fung SS, Lemer C, Russell RA, et al. Are practical recommendations practiced? A national multi-centre cross-sectional study on frequency of visual field testing in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:843–847.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith JF, Goldberg JL. The frequency of optical coherence tomography testing in glaucoma at a single academic medical center. J Glaucoma. 2016;25:e241–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:569–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glen FC, Baker H, Crabb DP. A qualitative investigation into patients’ views on visual field testing for glaucoma monitoring. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e003996.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner SK, Demirel S. Assessment of patient opinions of different clinical tests used in the management of glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:2127–2131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein JD, Talwar N, Laverne AM, et al. Trends in use of ancillary glaucoma tests for patients with open-angle glaucoma from 2001 to 2009. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:748–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heijl A, Patella VM, Chong LX, et al. A new SITA perimetric threshold testing algorithm: construction and a multicenter clinical study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;198:154–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Khuu SK, Agar A, et al. Clinical evaluation of swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-faster compared with swedish interactive thresholding algorithm-standard in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;208:251–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Z, Saunders LJ, Daga FB, et al. Frequency of testing to detect visual field progression derived using a longitudinal cohort of glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:786–792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Kalloniatis M. Viability of performing multiple 24-2 visual field examinations at the same clinical visit: the Frontloading Fields Study (FFS). Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;230:48–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Kalloniatis M. Detecting glaucoma progression using multiple intravisit perimetry results using models incorporating variability and unreliability. In: World Glaucoma Congress. Online. 2021. p. P–303.
   Google Scholar
• Wang H, Kalloniatis M. Clinical outcomes of the Centre for Eye Health: an intra-professional optometry-led collaborative eye care clinic in Australia. Clin Exp Optom. 2021;1–10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2021.1878821
   Google Scholar
• Jamous KF, Kalloniatis M, Hennessy MP, et al. Clinical model assisting with the collaborative care of glaucoma patients and suspects. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;43:308–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Health and Medical Research Council. Guidelines for the screening, prognosis, diagnosis, management and prevention of glaucoma. Internet. Commonwealth of Australia; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Prum BE Jr., Rosenberg LF, Gedde SJ, et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma preferred practice pattern((R)) guidelines. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:P41–P111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthusamy V, Turpin A, Nguyen BN, et al. What do healthcare consumers think about visual field test: present and future? In: ARVO Annual Meeting. Online. 2021. p. E–Absract 3532954.
   Google Scholar
• Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16:234–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phu J, Kalloniatis M. A strategy for seeding point error assessment for retesting (SPEAR) in perimetry applied to normal subjects, glaucoma suspects, and patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;221:115–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Is there evidence for continued learning over multiple years in perimetry? Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:1043–1048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild JM, Dengler-Harles M, Searle AE, et al. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1989;67:537–545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutzko KE, Brito CF, Wall M. Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2006–2013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson C, Wild JM, O’Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:268–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKendrick AM, Zeman A, Liu P, et al. Robot assistants for perimetry: a study of patient experience and performance. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019;8:59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prea SM, Kong GYX, Guymer RH, et al. Uptake, persistence, and performance of weekly home monitoring of visual field in a large cohort of patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;223:286–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razeghinejad R, Gonzalez-Garcia A, Myers JS, et al. Preliminary report on a novel virtual reality perimeter compared with standard automated perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2021;30:17–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour RA. The use of pain scales in assessing the efficacy of analgesics in post-operative dental pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1982;23:441–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales. Data from a randomized trial. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:43–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, et al. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:1129–1133.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grant S, Aitchison T, Henderson E, et al. A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. Chest. 1999;116:1208–1217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suarez-Alvarez J, Pedrosa I, Lozano LM, et al. Using reversed items in Likert scales: a questionable practice. Psicothema. 2018;30:149–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Savalei V. Improving the factor structure of psychological scales: the expanded format as an alternative to the Likert scale format. Educ Psychol Meas. 2016;76:357–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar