An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures in ophthalmic research

Denniston, Alastair K; Kyte, Derek; Calvert, Melanie; Burr, Jennifer

doi:10.1038/eye.2014.41

Cited by 55 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) is becoming increasingly important to support clinical decision making, as these measures capture perceptions from the patient's perspective and provide functional and quality of life information . For example, PROMs relating to self‐reported visual difficulties are used to guide referrals for cataract surgery and to quantify changes in vision‐related quality of life following interventions such as cataract and refractive surgery .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,8,10,11 The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is becoming increasingly important to support clinical decision making, as these measures capture perceptions from the patient's perspective and provide functional and quality of life information. 32 For example, PROMs relating to selfreported visual difficulties are used to guide referrals for cataract surgery 33 and to quantify changes in vision-related quality of life following interventions such as cataract 34,35 and refractive surgery. 36,37 There are a range of general vision-related quality-of-life questionnaires, such as NEI-VFQ-25, 38 ADVS, 39 VAQ, 40 and CatQuest-9SF, 41 however, these provide limited or no information specifically about night driving difficulties and are often designed for groups with particular visual impairments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development and validation of a vision and night driving questionnaire

Kimlin

Black

Djaja

et al. 2016

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a vision and night driving questionnaire

Kimlin

Black

Djaja

et al. 2016

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Traditional clinical measures of basic visual function, such as visual acuity (VA), do not necessarily reflect the patient's experience, or the impact of vision loss on patients' lives. 1 As a result, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used as secondary outcome measures (and sometimes as primary outcome measures) in ophthalmic clinical trials. [2][3][4][5] However, discrepancies have been found between self-reports and actual performance on real world tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refinement and preliminary evaluation of two tablet‐based tests of real‐world visual function

Jones

Tigchelaar

Demaria

et al. 2019

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To describe, refine, evaluate, and provide normative control data for two freely available tablet‐based tests of real‐world visual function, using a cohort of young, normally‐sighted adults. Methods Fifty young (18–40 years), normally‐sighted adults completed tablet‐based assessments of (1) face discrimination and (2) visual search. Each test was performed twice, to assess test‐retest repeatability. Post‐hoc analyses were performed to determine the number of trials required to obtain stable estimates of performance. Distributions were fitted to the normative data to determine the 99% population‐boundary for normally sighted observers. Participants were also asked to rate their comprehension of each test. Results Both tests provided stable estimates in around 20 trials (~1–4 min), with only a further reduction of 14%–17% in the 95% Coefficient of Repeatability (CoR95) when an additional 40 trials were included. When using only ~20 trials: median durations for the first run of each test were 191 s (Faces) and 51 s (Search); test‐retest CoR95 were 0.27 d (Faces) and 0.84 s (Search); and normative 99% population‐limits were 3.50 d (Faces) and 3.1 s (Search). No participants exhibited any difficulties completing either test (100% completion rate), and ratings of task‐understanding were high (Faces: 9.6 out of 10; Search: 9.7 out of 10). Conclusions This preliminary assessment indicated that both tablet‐based tests are able to provide simple, quick, and easy‐to‐administer measures of real‐world visual function in normally‐sighted young adults. Further work is required to assess their accuracy and utility in older people and individuals with visual impairment. Potential applications are discussed, including their use in clinic waiting rooms, and as an objective complement to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

show abstract

“…These parameters might be less interesting to patients per se , as their main interest is their ability to perform daily activities (Denniston et al. ; Fung et al. ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%