Advertisement

Patient Management

  • Enping ChenEmail author
  • Behrad Samadi
  • Laurence Quérat
Chapter

Abstract

Glaucoma care is a great challenge. Our aim as caregivers is, often with limited resources, to provide lifelong care to an ever-increasing number of patients suffering from a vision-threatening disease. To achieve this, we not only need to mobilize the available resources in the healthcare system but also must cooperate with our patients. Furthermore, we should discuss the importance of glaucoma care with policy makers and healthcare payers so that adequate resources are allocated to glaucoma care. Patient-centered cost-effective glaucoma management should be carried out at both the individual level and at group levels, covering those patients yet to be diagnosed. At present, elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only factor we can modify in our daily clinical practice. However, our care should not be limited to this. We should bear in mind throughout the care process that our goal is to ensure a good quality of life for glaucoma patients at a sustainable cost. This chapter discusses the glaucoma care process at different stages of the disease, from early detection to low-vision rehabilitation. We feel that it is essential to establish a good cooperation with the patient, and ensure that the patient understands the importance of glaucoma treatment and adheres to the treatment regimen. This chapter ends with a brief discussion on “big data” analysis. Big data analysis with standardized criteria for diagnosing different types of glaucoma, well-defined patient-related outcome measures, and relevant hypotheses may provide us with insight into key areas of interest, such as vision-related quality of life, care quality, and effectiveness of treatment regimens.

Keywords

Vision-related quality of life Quality of care Cooperation with patients Patient information Compliance Sustainable glaucoma care 

References

  1. 1.
    Sima Q. (145-86 BCE). Records of Grand Historian.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forsman E, Kivela T, Vesti E. Lifetime visual disability in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 2007;16(3):313–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peters D, Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Lifetime risk of blindness in open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(4):724–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burr JM, Mowatt G, Hernandez R, Siddiqui MA, Cook J, Lourenco T, Ramsay C, Vale L, Fraser C, Azuara-Blanco A, Deeks J, Cairns J, Wormald R, McPherson S, Rabindranath K, Grant A. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(41):iii–v.. ix–x, 1–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hernandez RA, Burr JM, Vale LD, OAG Screening Project Group. Economic evaluation of screening for open-angle glaucoma. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(2):203–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quigley HA, Park CK, Tracey PA, Pollack IP. Community screening for eye disease by laypersons: the Hoffberger program. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133(3):386–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tielsch JM, Katz J, Singh K, Quigley HA, Gottsch JD, Javitt J, Sommer A. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;134(10):1102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tuulonen A. Cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma in developed countries. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011;59(Suppl):S24–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kyari F, Abdull MM, Bastawrous A, Gilbert CE, Faal H. Epidemiology of glaucoma in sub-saharan Africa: prevalence, incidence and risk factors. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013;20(2):111–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boland MV, Gupta P, Ko F, Zhao D, Guallar E, Friedman DS. Evaluation of frequency-doubling technology perimetry as a means of screening for glaucoma and other eye diseases using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(1):57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chan MPY, Broadway DC, Khawaja AP, Yip JLY, Garway-Heath DF, Burr JM, Luben R, Hayat S, Dalzell N, Khaw KT, Foster PJ. Glaucoma and intraocular pressure in EPIC-Norfolk Eye Study: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2017;358:j3889.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(11):2144–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell P, Smith W, Chey T, Healey PR. Open-angle glaucoma and diabetes: the Blue Mountains eye study, Australia. Ophthalmology. 1997;104(4):712–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Katz J, Royall RM, Quigley HA, Javitt J. Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey. JAMA. 1991;266(3):369–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Geimer SA. Glaucoma diagnostics. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(1):1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fallon M, Valero O, Pazos M, Anton A. Diagnostic accuracy of imaging devices in glaucoma: a meta-analysis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2017;62(4):446–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chong GT, Lee RK. Glaucoma versus red disease: imaging and glaucoma diagnosis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012;23(2):79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wahl J, Barleon L, Morfeld P, Lichtmess A, Haas-Brahler S, Pfeiffer N. The Evonik-Mainz Eye Care-Study (EMECS): development of an expert system for glaucoma risk detection in a working population. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0158824.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muhammad H, Fuchs TJ, De Cuir N, De Moraes CG, Blumberg DM, Liebmann JM, Ritch R, Hood DC. Hybrid deep learning on single wide-field optical coherence tomography scans accurately classifies glaucoma suspects. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(12):1086–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hagman J. Comparison of resource utilization in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma between two cities in Finland: is more better? Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(3):1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lorenz K, Wolfram C, Breitscheidel L, Shlaen M, Verboven Y, Pfeiffer N. Direct cost and predictive factors for treatment in patients with ocular hypertension or early, moderate and advanced primary open-angle glaucoma: the CoGIS study in Germany. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251(8):2019–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Traverso CE, Walt JG, Kelly SP, Hommer AH, Bron AM, Denis P, Nordmann JP, Renard JP, Bayer A, Grehn F, Pfeiffer N, Cedrone C, Gandolfi S, Orzalesi N, Nucci C, Rossetti L, Azuara-Blanco A, Bagnis A, Hitchings R, Salmon JF, Bricola G, Buchholz PM, Kotak SV, Katz LM, Siegartel LR, Doyle JJ. Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilisation in Europe. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(10):1245–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heijl A, Alm A, Bengtsson B, Bergstrom A, Calissendorff B, Lindblom B, Linden C, Swedish Ophthalmological Society. The glaucoma guidelines of the Swedish Ophthalmological Society. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl (Oxf). 2012;251:1–40.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Green J, Siddall H, Murdoch I. Learning to live with glaucoma: a qualitative study of diagnosis and the impact of sight loss. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(2):257–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hark L, Waisbourd M, Myers JS, Henderer J, Crews JE, Saaddine JB, Molineaux J, Johnson D, Sembhi H, Stratford S, Suleiman A, Pizzi L, Spaeth GL, Katz LJ. Improving access to eye care among persons at high-risk of glaucoma in philadelphia--design and methodology: the philadelphia glaucoma detection and treatment project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2016;23(2):122–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hourihan F, Mitchell P. Factors associated with use of glaucoma medications in a population of older people: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1999;27(3–4):176–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dandona L, Dandona R, Mandal P, Srinivas M, John RK, McCarty CA, Rao GN. Angle-closure glaucoma in an urban population in southern India. The Andhra Pradesh eye disease study. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(9):1710–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dandona R, Dandona L, John RK, McCarty CA, Rao GN. Awareness of eye diseases in an urban population in southern India. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(2):96–102.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vijaya L, George R, Arvind H, Baskaran M, Paul PG, Ramesh SV, Raju P, Kumaramanickavel G, McCarty C. Prevalence of angle-closure disease in a rural southern Indian population. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(3):403–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hennis A, Wu SY, Nemesure B, Honkanen R, Leske MC, Barbados Eye Studies Group. Awareness of incident open-angle glaucoma in a population study: the Barbados Eye Studies. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(10):1816–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    WHO. Vision 2020 the right to sight, WHO. 2007. http://www.who.int/blindness/Vision2020_report.pdf?ua=1.
  32. 32.
    Katibeh M, Ziaei H, Panah E, Moein HR, Hosseini S, Kalantarion M, Eskandari A, Yaseri M. Knowledge and awareness of age related eye diseases: a population-based survey. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2014;9(2):223–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lau JT, Lee V, Fan D, Lau M, Michon J. Knowledge about cataract, glaucoma, and age related macular degeneration in the Hong Kong Chinese population. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(10):1080–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thapa SS, Berg RV, Khanal S, Paudyal I, Pandey P, Maharjan N, Twyana SN, Paudyal G, Gurung R, Ruit S, Rens GH. Prevalence of visual impairment, cataract surgery and awareness of cataract and glaucoma in Bhaktapur district of Nepal: the Bhaktapur Glaucoma Study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2011;11:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pfeiffer N, Krieglstein GK, Wellek S. Knowledge about glaucoma in the unselected population: a German survey. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(5):458–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vad betyder ordet Glaukom?. Ögontrycket, Svenska Glaukomförbundet. 2010.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dugast P, Thiboust P, Blumen-Ohana E, Nordmann JP. Is there a need for a therapeutic education with patients suffering with open-angle glaucoma? Preliminary inquiry regarding knowledge and patient adherence. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2016;39(6):527–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kowing D, Messer D, Slagle S, Wasik A, V-POAG Study Group. Programs to optimize adherence in glaucoma. Optometry. 2010;81(7):339–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Leydhecker W, Akiyama K, Neumann HG. Intraocular pressure in normal human eyes. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd Augenarztl Fortbild. 1958;133(5):662–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK 2nd, Wilson MR, Kass MA. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):714–20; discussion 829-730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK 2nd, Wilson MR, Gordon MO. The ocular hypertension treatment study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):701–13; discussion 829-730.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Prum BE Jr, Herndon LW Jr, Moroi SE, Mansberger SL, Stein JD, Lim MC, Rosenberg LF, Gedde SJ, Williams RD. Primary angle closure preferred practice pattern((R)) guidelines. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(1):P1–P40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tuulonen A, Airaksinen PJ, Erola E, Forsman E, Friberg K, Kaila M, Klemetti A, Makela M, Oskala P, Puska P, Suoranta L, Teir H, Uusitalo H, Vainio-Jylha E, Vuori ML. The Finnish evidence-based guideline for open-angle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2003;81(1):3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Odberg T, Jakobsen JE, Hultgren SJ, Halseide R. The impact of glaucoma on the quality of life of patients in Norway. I. Results from a self-administered questionnaire. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79(2):116–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, Noecker RJ, Walt JG, Siegartel LR, Evans SJ, Doyle JJ. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(1):24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Peters D, Heijl A, Brenner L, Bengtsson B. Visual impairment and vision-related quality of life in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial after 20 years of follow-up. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93(8):745–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Peters D, Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Factors associated with lifetime risk of open-angle glaucoma blindness. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(5):421–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    NEI. 2010 U.S. Age-Specific Prevalence Rates for Glaucoma by Age and Race/Ethnicity. https://nei.nih.gov/eyedata/glaucoma (2010).
  49. 49.
    Norin O, Enström J, de Gosson de Varennes S. Beteende och behov hos personer i kontakt med vården. Website of Sveriges Kommuner och Landstning: https://skl.se/download/18.5e588ed415aa6ecabde9f48f/1489484509965/Beteenden%20och%20behov%20hos%20personer%20i%20kontakt%20med%20v%C3%A5rden.pdf (2017).
  50. 50.
    European glaucoma society terminology and guidelines for glaucoma, 4th edition - Chapter 3: treatment principles and options Supported by the EGS Foundation: Part 1: Foreword; Introduction; Glossary; Chapter 3 treatment principles and options. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(6):130–95.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kalouda P, Keskini C, Anastasopoulos E, Topouzis F. Achievements and limits of current medical therapy of glaucoma. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017;59:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Matsuura M, Hirasawa K, Hirasawa H, Yanagisawa M, Murata H, Mayama C, Asaoka R. Developing an item bank to measure quality of life in individuals with glaucoma, and the results of the interview with patients: the effect of visual function, visual field progression rate, medical, and surgical treatments on quality of life. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(2):e64–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Williams AM, Muir KW, Rosdahl JA. Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fukuchi T, Yoshino T, Sawada H, Seki M, Togano T, Tanaka T, Ueda J, Abe H. The relationship between the mean deviation slope and follow-up intraocular pressure in open-angle glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2013;22(9):689–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(10):1268–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, Liu G, Li G, Gaasterland D, Caprioli J, Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(9):1627–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Clement CI, Bhartiya S, Shaarawy T. New perspectives on target intraocular pressure. Surv Ophthalmol. 2014;59(6):615–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chen E, Querat L, Akerstedt C. Self-tonometry as a complement in the investigation of glaucoma patients. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(8):788–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Querat L, Chen E. Monitoring daily intraocular pressure fluctuations with self-tonometry in healthy subjects. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(5):525–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jampel HD. Target pressure in glaucoma therapy. J Glaucoma. 1997;6(2):133–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zeyen T. Target pressures in glaucoma. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 1999;274:61–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Stalmans I, Sunaric Megevand G, Cordeiro MF, Hommer A, Rossetti L, Goni F, Heijl A, Bron A. Preservative-free treatment in glaucoma: who, when, and why. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2013;23(4):518–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tuulonen A, Kataja M, Syvanen U, Miettunen S, Uusitalo H. Right services to right patients at right time in right setting in Tays Eye Centre. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(7):730–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Nordmann JP, Auzanneau N, Ricard S, Berdeaux G. Vision related quality of life and topical glaucoma treatment side effects. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tuulonen A. Is more always better? Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2004;82(4):377–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lee BW, Murakami Y, Duncan MT, Kao AA, Huang JY, Lin S, Singh K. Patient-related and system-related barriers to glaucoma follow-up in a county hospital population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(10):6542–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gott bemötande av vården där Stockholmare känner sig mest trygga med sin ögonsjukvård. Ögontrycket, Svenska Glaukomförbundet. 2016.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ekstrom C. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma in central Sweden. The Tierp Glaucoma Survey. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1996;74(2):107–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80(5):389–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ramakrishnan R, Nirmalan PK, Krishnadas R, Thulasiraj RD, Tielsch JM, Katz J, Friedman DS, Robin AL. Glaucoma in a rural population of southern India: the Aravind comprehensive eye survey. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(8):1484–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Vijaya L, George R, Arvind H, Baskaran M, Raju P, Ramesh SV, Paul PG, Kumaramanickavel G, McCarty C. Prevalence and causes of blindness in the rural population of the Chennai Glaucoma Study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(4):407–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Abu Hussein NB, Eissa IM, Abdel-Kader AA. Analysis of factors affecting patients’ compliance to topical antiglaucoma medications in Egypt as a developing country model. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:234157.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rotchford AP, Murphy KM. Compliance with timolol treatment in glaucoma. Eye (Lond). 1998;12(Pt 2):234–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Schwartz GF. Compliance and persistency in glaucoma follow-up treatment. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005;16(2):114–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tsai JC. A comprehensive perspective on patient adherence to topical glaucoma therapy. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(11 Suppl):S30–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Vanelli M, Pedan A, Liu N, Hoar J, Messier D, Kiarsis K. The role of patient inexperience in medication discontinuation: a retrospective analysis of medication nonpersistence in seven chronic illnesses. Clin Ther. 2009;31(11):2628–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hwang DK, Liu CJ, Pu CY, Chou YJ, Chou P. Persistence of topical glaucoma medication: a nationwide population-based cohort study in Taiwan. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(12):1446–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lusthaus JA, Goldberg I. Investigational and experimental drugs for intraocular pressure reduction in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2016;25(10):1201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Reardon G, Schwartz GF, Mozaffari E. Patient persistency with ocular prostaglandin therapy: a population-based, retrospective study. Clin Ther. 2003;25(4):1172–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Yousuf SJ, Jones LS. Adherence to topical glaucoma medication during hospitalization. J Glaucoma. 2011;20(9):573–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(4):498–505.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Norell SE, Granstrom PA, Wassen R. A medication monitor and fluorescein technique designed to study medication behaviour. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1980;58(3):459–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gurwitz JH, Glynn RJ, Monane M, Everitt DE, Gilden D, Smith N, Avorn J. Treatment for glaucoma: adherence by the elderly. Am J Public Health. 1993;83(5):711–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kass MA, Meltzer DW, Gordon M, Cooper D, Goldberg J. Compliance with topical pilocarpine treatment. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101(5):515–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Nordstrom BL, Friedman DS, Mozaffari E, Quigley HA, Walker AM. Persistence and adherence with topical glaucoma therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(4):598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Olthoff CM, Hoevenaars JG, van den Borne BW, Webers CA, Schouten JS. Prevalence and determinants of non-adherence to topical hypotensive treatment in Dutch glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247(2):235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Olthoff CM, Schouten JS, van de Borne BW, Webers CA. Noncompliance with ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension an evidence-based review. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(6):953–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Schwartz GF, Reardon G, Mozaffari E. Persistency with latanoprost or timolol in primary open-angle glaucoma suspects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137(1 Suppl):S13–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Deokule S, Sadiq S, Shah S. Chronic open angle glaucoma: patient awareness of the nature of the disease, topical medication, compliance and the prevalence of systemic symptoms. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24(1):9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Mehari T, Giorgis AT, Shibeshi W. Level of adherence to ocular hypotensive agents and its determinant factors among glaucoma patients in Menelik II Referral Hospital, Ethiopia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:131.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Movahedinejad T, Adib-Hajbaghery M. Adherence to treatment in patients with open-angle glaucoma and its related factors. Electron Physician. 2016;8(9):2954–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Okeke CO, Quigley HA, Jampel HD, Ying GS, Plyler RJ, Jiang Y, Friedman DS. Interventions improve poor adherence with once daily glaucoma medications in electronically monitored patients. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2286–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Hahn SR. Patient-centered communication to assess and enhance patient adherence to glaucoma medication. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(11 Suppl):S37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Tsai JC, McClure CA, Ramos SE, Schlundt DG, Pichert JW. Compliance barriers in glaucoma: a systematic classification. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(5):393–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Chawla A, McGalliard JN, Batterbury M. Use of eyedrops in glaucoma: how can we help to reduce non-compliance? Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85(4):464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Tsai JC. Medication adherence in glaucoma: approaches for optimizing patient compliance. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17(2):190–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Tsai JH, Derby E, Holland EJ, Khatana AK. Incidence and prevalence of glaucoma in severe ocular surface disease. Cornea. 2006;25(5):530–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sleath B, Robin AL, Covert D, Byrd JE, Tudor G, Svarstad B. Patient-reported behavior and problems in using glaucoma medications. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(3):431–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Ngan R, Lam DL, Mudumbai RC, Chen PP. Risk factors for noncompliance with follow-up among normal-tension glaucoma suspects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144(2):310–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Friedman DS, Hahn SR, Gelb L, Tan J, Shah SN, Kim EE, Zimmerman TJ, Quigley HA. Doctor-patient communication, health-related beliefs, and adherence in glaucoma results from the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(8):1320–27, 1327 e1321–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Budenz DL. A clinician’s guide to the assessment and management of nonadherence in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(11 Suppl):S43–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Tatham AJ, Sarodia U, Gatrad F, Awan A. Eye drop instillation technique in patients with glaucoma. Eye (Lond). 2013;27(11):1293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Schwartz GF, Hollander DA, Williams JM. Evaluation of eye drop administration technique in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29(11):1515–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Dietlein TS, Jordan JF, Luke C, Schild A, Dinslage S, Krieglstein GK. Self-application of single-use eyedrop containers in an elderly population: comparisons with standard eyedrop bottle and with younger patients. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86(8):856–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Kholdebarin R, Campbell RJ, Jin YP, Buys YM. Multicenter study of compliance and drop administration in glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol. 2008;43(4):454–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Mohindroo C, Ichhpujani P, Kumar S. How ‘Drug Aware’ are our glaucoma patients? J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2015;9(2):33–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Linden C, Bengtsson B, Alm A, Calissendorff B, Eckerlund I, Heijl A. Glaucoma management in Sweden -- results from a nationwide survey. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(1):20–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Friedman DS, Cramer J, Quigley H. A more proactive approach is needed in glaucoma care. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(8):1134–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Friedman DS, Hahn SR, Quigley HA, Kotak S, Kim E, Onofrey M, Eagan C, Mardekian J. Doctor-patient communication in glaucoma care: analysis of videotaped encounters in community-based office practice. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2277–85, e2271–2273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Komaroff E. Factors for progression and glaucoma treatment: the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15(2):102–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Stewart WC, Kolker AE, Sharpe ED, Day DG, Konstas AG, Hollo G, Astakhov YS, Teus MA, Stewart JA. Long-term progression at individual mean intraocular pressure levels in primary open-angle and exfoliative glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008;18(5):765–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Chauhan BC, Mikelberg FS, Balaszi AG, LeBlanc RP, Lesk MR, Trope GE, Canadian Glaucoma Study Group. Canadian Glaucoma Study: 2. risk factors for the progression of open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(8):1030–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Garway-Heath DF, Crabb DP, Bunce C, Lascaratos G, Amalfitano F, Anand N, Azuara-Blanco A, Bourne RR, Broadway DC, Cunliffe IA, Diamond JP, Fraser SG, Ho TA, Martin KR, McNaught AI, Negi A, Patel K, Russell RA, Shah A, Spry PG, Suzuki K, White ET, Wormald RP, Xing W, Zeyen TG. Latanoprost for open-angle glaucoma (UKGTS): a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9975):1295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Heijl A, Buchholz P, Norrgren G, Bengtsson B. Rates of visual field progression in clinical glaucoma care. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(5):406–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E, Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(1):48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Miglior S, Torri V, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, Vaz JC, Adamsons I, E. Group. Intercurrent factors associated with the development of open-angle glaucoma in the European glaucoma prevention study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144(2):266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(2):343–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Rossetti L, Goni F, Denis P, Bengtsson B, Martinez A, Heijl A. Focusing on glaucoma progression and the clinical importance of progression rate measurement: a review. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(Suppl 1):S1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Harju M. Intraocular pressure and progression in exfoliative eyes with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78(6):699–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Leske MC, Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Natural history of open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2271–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Konstas AG, Hollo G, Astakhov YS, Teus MA, Akopov EL, Jenkins JN, Stewart WC. Factors associated with long-term progression or stability in exfoliation glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(1):29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Dong L, Yang Z, EMGT Group. Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(11):1965–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Broman AT, Quigley HA, West SK, Katz J, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Tielsch JM, Friedman DS, Crowston J, Taylor HR, Varma R, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Heijl A, He M, Foster PJ. Estimating the rate of progressive visual field damage in those with open-angle glaucoma, from cross-sectional data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(1):66–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Leske MC, Wu SY, Hennis A, Honkanen R, Nemesure B, B. E. S. Group. Risk factors for incident open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Studies. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(1):85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Prata TS, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, Tello C, Ritch R, Liebmann JM. Factors affecting rates of visual field progression in glaucoma patients with optic disc hemorrhage. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(1):24–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Bonomi L, Marchini G, Marraffa M, Bernardi P, Morbio R, Varotto A. Vascular risk factors for primary open angle glaucoma: the Egna-Neumarkt Study. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(7):1287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Chung HS, Harris A, Evans DW, Kagemann L, Garzozi HJ, Martin B. Vascular aspects in the pathophysiology of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;43(Suppl 1):S43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Jurgens C, Grossjohann R, Tost F. Distribution of mean, systolic and diastolic ocular perfusion pressure in telemedical homemonitoring of glaucoma patients. Ophthalmic Res. 2012;48(4):208–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    McGlynn MM, Ehrlich JR, Marlow ED, Chee RI, Silva FQ, Van Tassel SH, Radcliffe NM. Association of blood and ocular perfusion pressure with structural glaucomatous progression by flicker chronoscopy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(12):1569–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Okumura Y, Yuki K, Tsubota K. Low diastolic blood pressure is associated with the progression of normal-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmologica. 2012;228(1):36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Ramdas WD, Wolfs RC, Hofman A, de Jong PT, Vingerling JR, Jansonius NM. Ocular perfusion pressure and the incidence of glaucoma: real effect or artifact? The Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(9):6875–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Tielsch JM, Katz J, Sommer A, Quigley HA, Javitt JC. Hypertension, perfusion pressure, and primary open-angle glaucoma. A population-based assessment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(2):216–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Diurnal IOP fluctuation: not an independent risk factor for glaucomatous visual field loss in high-risk ocular hypertension. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243(6):513–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Bengtsson B, Leske MC, Hyman L, Heijl A, Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Fluctuation of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(2):205–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Caprioli J. Intraocular pressure fluctuation: an independent risk factor for glaucoma? Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(8):1124–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Caprioli J, Coleman A. Pressure fluctuation. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(4):817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Caprioli J, Coleman AL. Intraocular pressure fluctuation a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the advanced glaucoma intervention study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(7):1123–29, e1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    De Moraes CG, Juthani VJ, Liebmann JM, Teng CC, Tello C, Susanna R Jr, Ritch R. Risk factors for visual field progression in treated glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(5):562–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Hong S, Seong GJ, Hong YJ. Long-term intraocular pressure fluctuation and progressive visual field deterioration in patients with glaucoma and low intraocular pressures after a triple procedure. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(8):1010–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Nouri-Mahdavi K, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Fluctuation of intraocular pressure as a predictor of visual field progression. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(8):1168–69; author reply 1169–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Borger PH, van Leeuwen R, Hulsman CA, Wolfs RC, van der Kuip DA, Hofman A, de Jong PT. Is there a direct association between age-related eye diseases and mortality? The Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(7):1292–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Klein BE, Klein R, Meuer SM, Goetz LA. Migraine headache and its association with open-angle glaucoma: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34(10):3024–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Lee AJ, Wang JJ, Kifley A, Mitchell P. Open-angle glaucoma and cardiovascular mortality: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(7):1069–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Wu SY, Nemesure B, Hennis A, Schachat AP, Hyman L, Leske MC, Barbados Eye Studies Group. Open-angle glaucoma and mortality: the Barbados Eye Studies. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(3):365–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Knight OJ, Chang RT, Feuer WJ, Budenz DL. Comparison of retinal nerve fiber layer measurements using time domain and spectral domain optical coherent tomography. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(7):1271–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Zhang X, Dastiridou A, Francis BA, Tan O, Varma R, Greenfield DS, Schuman JS, Huang D, Advanced Imaging for Glaucoma Study Group. Comparison of glaucoma progression detection by optical coherence tomography and visual field. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;184:63–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Prager AJ, Hood DC, Liebmann JM, De Moraes CG, Al-Aswad LA, Yu Q, Cioffi GA, Blumberg DM. Association of glaucoma-related, optical coherence tomography-measured macular damage with vision-related quality of life. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(7):783–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Blumberg DM, De Moraes CG, Prager AJ, Yu Q, Al-Aswad L, Cioffi GA, Liebmann JM, Hood DC. Association between undetected 10-2 visual field damage and vision-related quality of life in patients with glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(7):742–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, Deng SX, Cui X, Yu X, Sun X. A new tonometer--the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(1):659–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Kotecha A, White E, Schlottmann PG, Garway-Heath DF. Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(4):730–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Lee YG, Kim JH, Kim NR, Kim CY, Lee ES. Comparison between tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(7):843–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Nakao Y, Kiuchi Y, Okimoto S. A comparison of the corrected intraocular pressure obtained by the corvis ST and Reichert 7CR tonometers in glaucoma patients. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    WHO. WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/whoqol-qualityoflife/en/.
  154. 154.
    van der Krieke L, Blaauw FJ, Emerencia AC, Schenk HM, Slaets JP, Bos EH, de Jonge P, Jeronimus BF. Temporal dynamics of health and well-being: a crowdsourcing approach to momentary assessments and automated generation of personalized feedback. Psychosom Med. 2017;79(2):213–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Fenwick EK, Ong PG, Man REK, Sabanayagam C, Cheng CY, Wong TY, Lamoureux EL. Vision impairment and major eye diseases reduce vision-specific emotional well-being in a Chinese population. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(5):686–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    McKean-Cowdin R, Wang Y, Wu J, Azen SP, Varma R, Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Impact of visual field loss on health-related quality of life in glaucoma: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(6):941–48 e941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O, Worton B, O’Brien C. Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(2):139–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Quaranta L, Riva I, Gerardi C, Oddone F, Floriano I, Konstas AG. Quality of life in glaucoma: a review of the literature. Adv Ther. 2016;33(6):959–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Wilson MR, Coleman AL, Yu F, Bing EG, Sasaki IF, Berlin K, Winters J, Lai A. Functional status and well-being in patients with glaucoma as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 questionnaire. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(11):2112–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, Poinoosawmy D, Fontana L, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Severity and stability of glaucoma: patient perception compared with objective measurement. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117(4):450–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Burton R, Crabb DP, Smith ND, Glen FC, Garway-Heath DF. Glaucoma and reading: exploring the effects of contrast lowering of text. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89(9):1282–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Ramulu PY, West SK, Munoz B, Jampel HD, Friedman DS. Glaucoma and reading speed: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation project. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(1):82–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Murata N, Miyamoto D, Togano T, Fukuchi T. Evaluating silent reading performance with an eye tracking system in patients with glaucoma. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170230.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Haymes SA, Leblanc RP, Nicolela MT, Chiasson LA, Chauhan BC. Risk of falls and motor vehicle collisions in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(3):1149–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Janz NK, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Wren PA, Niziol LM, Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS) Investigators. Evaluating clinical change and visual function concerns in drivers and nondrivers with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(4):1718–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Stryker JE, Beck AD, Primo SA, Echt KV, Bundy L, Pretorius GC, Glanz K. An exploratory study of factors influencing glaucoma treatment adherence. J Glaucoma. 2010;19(1):66–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Asrani S, Chatterjee A, Wallace DK, Santiago-Turla C, Stinnett S. Evaluation of the ICare rebound tonometer as a home intraocular pressure monitoring device. J Glaucoma. 2011;20(2):74–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Rosentreter A, Jablonski KS, Mellein AC, Gaki S, Hueber A, Dietlein TS. A new rebound tonometer for home monitoring of intraocular pressure. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(11):1713–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Sood V, Ramanathan US. Self-monitoring of intraocular pressure outside of normal office hours using rebound tonometry: initial clinical experience in patients with normal tension glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(10):807–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Termuhlen J, Mihailovic N, Alnawaiseh M, Dietlein TS, Rosentreter A. Accuracy of measurements with the iCare HOME rebound tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(6):533–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Flemmons MS, Hsiao YC, Dzau J, Asrani S, Jones S, Freedman SF. Home tonometry for management of pediatric glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152(3):470–8. e472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Gandhi NG, Jones SK, Freedman SF. Icare ONE home tonometry in children with and without known glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(2):e66–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Hsiao YC, Dzau JR, Flemmons MS, Asrani S, Jones S, Freedman SF. Home assessment of diurnal intraocular pressure in healthy children using the Icare rebound tonometer. J AAPOS. 2012;16(1):58–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Lowry EA, Hou J, Hennein L, Chang RT, Lin S, Keenan J, Wang SK, Ianchulev S, Pasquale LR, Han Y. Comparison of peristat online perimetry with the humphrey perimetry in a clinic-based setting. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5(4):4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Matsumoto C, Yamao S, Nomoto H, Takada S, Okuyama S, Kimura S, Yamanaka K, Aihara M, Shimomura Y. Visual field testing with head-mounted perimeter ‘imo’. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0161974.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Anderson AJ, Bedggood PA, George Kong YX, Martin KR, Vingrys AJ. Can home monitoring allow earlier detection of rapid visual field progression in glaucoma? Ophthalmology. 2017;124(12):1735–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    WHO. Vision impairment and blindness. World Health Organization. 2017. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/.
  178. 178.
    Baker RS, Bazargan M, Bazargan-Hejazi S, Calderon JL. Access to vision care in an urban low-income multiethnic population. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005;12(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Holahan J, Cook A. Changes in economic conditions and health insurance coverage, 2000–2004. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;Suppl Web Exclusives:W5-498–508.Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Zhang X, Andersen R, Saaddine JB, Beckles GL, Duenas MR, Lee PP. Measuring access to eye care: a public health perspective. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008;15(6):418–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Glen FC, Crabb DP. Living with glaucoma: a qualitative study of functional implications and patients’ coping behaviours. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015;15:128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Ramulu P. Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(2):92–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Goldberg I, Clement CI, Chiang TH, Walt JG, Lee LJ, Graham S, Healey PR. Assessing quality of life in patients with glaucoma using the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 (GQL-15) questionnaire. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(1):6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Nassiri N, Mehravaran S, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Coleman AL. National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: usefulness in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(8):745–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Popescu ML, Boisjoly H, Schmaltz H, Kergoat MJ, Rousseau J, Moghadaszadeh S, Djafari F, Freeman EE. Age-related eye disease and mobility limitations in older adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(10):7168–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Algvere PV, Jahnberg P, Textorius O. The Swedish retinal detachment Register. I. A database for epidemiological and clinical studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1999;237(2):137–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Artzen D, Lundstrom M, Behndig A, Stenevi U, Lydahl E, Montan P. Capsule complication during cataract surgery: case-control study of preoperative and intraoperative risk factors: Swedish Capsule Rupture Study Group report 2. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(10):1688–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Behndig A, Montan P, Stenevi U, Kugelberg M, Lundstrom M. One million cataract surgeries: Swedish National Cataract Register 1992–2009. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(8):1539–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Clark A, Ng JQ, Morlet N, Semmens JB. Big data and ophthalmic research. Surv Ophthalmol. 2016;61(4):443–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Tuulonen A, Azuara-Blanco A. Cost-effectiveness. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(1):166–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Tuulonen A. Challenges of glaucoma care – high volume, high quality, low cost. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(1):3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Glaucoma ServiceSt. Erik Eye Hospital, Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations