Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2000
Vision-specific quality of life and modes of refractive error correction.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Walline J J, Bailey M D, Zadnik K
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Many studies currently use surveys to assess patients' reports of vision-specific quality of life to determine the impact of the disease or the most appropriate mode of treatment. One such instrument, the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ), was developed to assess vision-related quality of life with respect to emotional well-being and social function as well as difficulty with tasks and symptoms. We administered the NEI-VFQ to 218 subjects free of eye disease to see if the survey was sensitive enough to detect differences in three modes of refractive error correction: spectacles, soft contact lenses, and rigid contact lenses.
METHODS: Surveys were administered to 117 rigid contact lens wearers, 51 spectacle wearers, and 50 soft contact lens wearers. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine significant differences in each of the subscales.
RESULTS: The Peripheral Vision subscale score (mean +/- SD) was 92.6 +/- 15.2 for the spectacle wearers, 100.0 +/- 0.0 for the soft contact lens wearers, and 98.3 +/- 7.1 for the rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers; the spectacle wearers' Peripheral Vision score was significantly lower than the other two groups (Wilcoxon rank sum, p < 0.003 for both). The spectacle wearers (96.6 +/- 9.2) also had a significantly lower Dependency subscale score than the rigid contact lens group (99.7 +/- 1.5) (Wilcoxon rank sum, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences between the three groups detected in the mean of any of the other subscale scores. At least 50% of the subjects reported the maximum score for 6 of the 11 subscales. Given our sample size, we have 100% power to detect a difference of 10 points with a SD of 10 at the alpha = 0.05 level.
CONCLUSION: The NEI-VFQ is not appropriate for detecting significant differences in vision-related quality of life among spectacle, soft contact lens, and rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers, primarily due to maximum ratings by many of the subjects.
METHODS: Surveys were administered to 117 rigid contact lens wearers, 51 spectacle wearers, and 50 soft contact lens wearers. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine significant differences in each of the subscales.
RESULTS: The Peripheral Vision subscale score (mean +/- SD) was 92.6 +/- 15.2 for the spectacle wearers, 100.0 +/- 0.0 for the soft contact lens wearers, and 98.3 +/- 7.1 for the rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers; the spectacle wearers' Peripheral Vision score was significantly lower than the other two groups (Wilcoxon rank sum, p < 0.003 for both). The spectacle wearers (96.6 +/- 9.2) also had a significantly lower Dependency subscale score than the rigid contact lens group (99.7 +/- 1.5) (Wilcoxon rank sum, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences between the three groups detected in the mean of any of the other subscale scores. At least 50% of the subjects reported the maximum score for 6 of the 11 subscales. Given our sample size, we have 100% power to detect a difference of 10 points with a SD of 10 at the alpha = 0.05 level.
CONCLUSION: The NEI-VFQ is not appropriate for detecting significant differences in vision-related quality of life among spectacle, soft contact lens, and rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers, primarily due to maximum ratings by many of the subjects.