Beyond visual acuity: Patient-relevant assessment measures of visual function in retinal diseases
Purpose: To identify patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and other clinical outcome measures (contrast sensitivity (CS), low-luminance visual acuity (LLVA) and reading acuity or reading speed (RA-RS)), relevant to patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or diabetic retinopathy (DR), which...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) |
| Repositorio: | Docta Complutense |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/7757 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/7757 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | 617.73:617.75 617.735:616.379-008.64 617.73-003.8 Age-related macular degeneration Retina Diabetic retinopathy Psychophysical testing Retinal pathology research Practice management Socioeconomics and education in medicine Ophthalmology Oftalmología Optometría 3201.09 Oftalmología 2209.15 Optometría |
| Sumario: | Purpose: To identify patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and other clinical outcome measures (contrast sensitivity (CS), low-luminance visual acuity (LLVA) and reading acuity or reading speed (RA-RS)), relevant to patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or diabetic retinopathy (DR), which would be recommended for use in clinical practice. Methods: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, based on the synthesis of the scientific evidence and the collective judgment of an expert panel using the two-round Delphi method, was applied. The evidence synthesis was performed by searching for articles on outcome measures for AMD and/or DR published between 2005 and 2018 in English or Spanish. The expert panel consisted of 14 Spanish ophthalmologists, who rated the recommendation degree for each outcome measure on a scale of 1 (extremely irrelevant) to 9 (maximum relevance). The recommended outcome measures were established according to the panel median score and the level of the panelists’ agreement. Results: Through the evidence search, 33 PRO-specific questionnaires (21 for visual function, six for AMD, three for DR, one for AMD and DR) and two treatment satisfaction questionnaires (one on AMD and one on DR) were identified. In addition, 21 methods were found for measuring CS, five for LLVA, and nine for RA-RS. According to the panel ratings, 11 of the 64 outcome measures evaluated for AMD, and seven of the 61 evaluated for DR were recommended. Conclusion: The AMD and DR outcome measures recommended will help ophthalmologists choose the outcome measure most appropriate for their patients. Furthermore, the use of PROs will contribute to shifting clinical practice towards patient-centered medicine. |
|---|