Files in this item
Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research : a systematic review of vision instruments
Item metadata
dc.contributor.author | Hamzah, Jemaima Che | |
dc.contributor.author | Burr, Jennifer Margaret | |
dc.contributor.author | Ramsay, Craig R. | |
dc.contributor.author | Azuara-Blanco, Augusto | |
dc.contributor.author | Prior, Maria | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2013-11-14T15:01:00Z | |
dc.date.available | 2013-11-14T15:01:00Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2011-09 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Hamzah , J C , Burr , J M , Ramsay , C R , Azuara-Blanco , A & Prior , M 2011 , ' Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research : a systematic review of vision instruments ' , Quality of Life Research , vol. 20 , no. 7 , pp. 1141-1158 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9831-1 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 0962-9343 | |
dc.identifier.other | PURE: 16572690 | |
dc.identifier.other | PURE UUID: 2d6c721a-e817-49b3-a301-4dd37e97a822 | |
dc.identifier.other | WOS: 000294261100018 | |
dc.identifier.other | Scopus: 80052305460 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10023/4203 | |
dc.description.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. | |
dc.format.extent | 18 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.relation.ispartof | Quality of Life Research | en |
dc.rights | © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011. Che Hamzah, J, Burr, JM, Ramsay, CR, Azuara-Blanco, A & Prior, M 2011, 'Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research: a systematic review of vision instruments', Quality of Life Research, vol 20, no. 7, pp. 1141-1158. The final publication is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9831-1 | en |
dc.subject | Patient-reported outcomes | en |
dc.subject | PROs | en |
dc.subject | Glaucoma | en |
dc.subject | Clinical trials | en |
dc.subject | Quality of life | en |
dc.subject | WHO ICF framework | en |
dc.subject | Impairment questionnaire | en |
dc.subject | Visual function questionnaire | en |
dc.subject | Sickness Impact Profile | en |
dc.subject | Ocular surface disease | en |
dc.subject | Cataract - surgery care | en |
dc.subject | Psychometric properties | en |
dc.subject | Intraocular-pressure | en |
dc.subject | Rasch analysis | en |
dc.subject | Functioning questionnaire | en |
dc.subject | RE Ophthalmology | en |
dc.subject.lcc | RE | en |
dc.title | Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research : a systematic review of vision instruments | en |
dc.type | Journal item | en |
dc.description.version | Postprint | en |
dc.contributor.institution | University of St Andrews. School of Medicine | en |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9831-1 | |
dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | en |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.