2003
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0067-4_7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Modified Protocol for the Assessment of Visual Function in Patients with Retinitis Pigmentosa

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are currently nine RP-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. 31,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] The motive behind our endeavor to develop a comprehensive RP-specific PRO is that none of the existing PRO instrument has undergone comprehensive validation in this disease group and their content coverage is limited to measuring only a few QoL domains (predominantly mobility). [42][43][44] Lack of an appropriate RP-specific PRO measure restricts the understanding of the full impact of RP on QoL.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are currently nine RP-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. 31,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] The motive behind our endeavor to develop a comprehensive RP-specific PRO is that none of the existing PRO instrument has undergone comprehensive validation in this disease group and their content coverage is limited to measuring only a few QoL domains (predominantly mobility). [42][43][44] Lack of an appropriate RP-specific PRO measure restricts the understanding of the full impact of RP on QoL.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prem Senthil and colleagues (2017a) conducted a systematic review and quality evaluation of PROMs for retinal diseases that includes publications up to 2014. The authors identified one ophthalmic, non-disease-specific PROM, the NEI-VFQ, and 11 IRD-specific PROMs (nine for RP, one for Stargardt disease, and one for congenital stationary night blindness), including the following: MDQ (Geruschat et al 1998), the IMQ (Turano et al 1999), FEQ (Kennedy et al 1977, PVFQ (Lodha et al 2003), EDTQ (Lowe and Drasado 1992), V-ADL (Somani et al 2006), ADVQ (Szlyk et al 1998), DTPQ (Szlyk et al 2001), NVQ-39 (Bijveld et al 2013), VDQ (Sumi et al 2000), and SMDVQ (Miedziak et al 2000). These diseasespecific instruments cover only one or two domains across mobility, health concerns, and activity limitations, while the NEI-VFQ (Mangione et al 1998a) covers activity limitations, emotional well-being, social participation, and ocular comfort (Table 1).…”
Section: Ird Proms Developed Prior To the 2009 Fda Guidancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…117 Particularly for RCD, Szlyk et al have developed questionnaires that showed strong correlation with BCVA, CS and VF. 118,119 The Vision Function Scale-plus (19 items) survey, initially developed for cataract, has also provided promising results in RCD. 120 Recently, the Michigan Retinal Degeneration Questionnaire was also validated as a PRO for patients with IRD, employing 59 items in 7 domains.…”
Section: Patient-reported Outcome Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%