Ophthalmology · 2000
Screening relatives of patients with familial chronic open angle glaucoma.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nguyen R L, Raja S C, Traboulsi E I
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To describe the value and the results of screening of family members of individuals with familial chronic open-angle glaucoma (COAG) for the disease.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of families with COAG.
PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-six individuals from 15 families with COAG.
TESTING: Complete ophthalmologic examinations, automated perimetry, and optic nerve photography.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease status as glaucoma patient (at least two of three parameters abnormal: intraocular pressure, visual field, or disc appearance), glaucoma suspect (one of three parameters abnormal), or normal.
RESULTS: Twenty-six relatives were diagnosed with COAG. The diagnosis was most frequently made on the basis of intraocular pressure readings and automated perimetry. Twenty-three relatives were classified as glaucoma suspects; automated perimetry was the most useful modality for the detection of abnormalities in these individuals. Siblings of COAG patients had the highest risk of COAG developing (64.7%) compared with children (13.2%) or other blood relatives (22.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: When COAG is present in more than one family member, immediate and other relatives should be evaluated for glaucoma by means of clinical examination and automated perimetry.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of families with COAG.
PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-six individuals from 15 families with COAG.
TESTING: Complete ophthalmologic examinations, automated perimetry, and optic nerve photography.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease status as glaucoma patient (at least two of three parameters abnormal: intraocular pressure, visual field, or disc appearance), glaucoma suspect (one of three parameters abnormal), or normal.
RESULTS: Twenty-six relatives were diagnosed with COAG. The diagnosis was most frequently made on the basis of intraocular pressure readings and automated perimetry. Twenty-three relatives were classified as glaucoma suspects; automated perimetry was the most useful modality for the detection of abnormalities in these individuals. Siblings of COAG patients had the highest risk of COAG developing (64.7%) compared with children (13.2%) or other blood relatives (22.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: When COAG is present in more than one family member, immediate and other relatives should be evaluated for glaucoma by means of clinical examination and automated perimetry.