Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 923
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 62  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 400-406

Use of subjective and objective criteria to categorise visual disability


Department of Ophthalmology, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Upreet Dhaliwal
KH-6, New Kavinagar, Ghaziabad - 201 002, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.121146

Rights and Permissions

Context: Visual disability is categorised using objective criteria. Subjective measures are not considered. Aim: To use subjective criteria along with objective ones to categorise visual disability. Settings and Design: Ophthalmology out-patient department; teaching hospital; observational study. Material and Methods: Consecutive persons aged >25 years, with vision <20/20 (in one or both eyes) due to chronic conditions, like cataract and refractive errors, were categorized into 11 groups of increasing disability; group-zero: normal range of vision, to group-X: no perception of light, bilaterally. Snellen's vision; binocular contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson chart); automated binocular visual field (Humphrey; Esterman test); and vision-related quality of life (Indian Visual Function Questionnaire-33; IND-VFQ33) were recorded. Statistical Analysis: SPSS version-17; Kruskal-wallis test was used to compare contrast sensitivity and visual fields across groups, and Mann-Whitney U test for pair-wise comparison (Bonferroni adjustment; P < 0.01). One-way ANOVA compared quality of life data across groups; for pairwise significance, Dunnett T3 test was applied. Results: In 226 patients, contrast sensitivity and visual fields were comparable for differing disability grades except when disability was severe (P < 0.001), or moderately severe (P < 0.01). Individual scales of IND-VFQ33 were also mostly comparable; however, global scores showed a distinct pattern, being different for some disability grades but comparable for groups III (78.51 6.86) and IV (82.64 5.80), and groups IV and V (77.23 3.22); these were merged to generate group 345; similarly, global scores were comparable for adjacent groups V and VI (72.53 6.77), VI and VII (74.46 4.32), and VII and VIII (69.12 5.97); these were merged to generate group 5678; thereafter, contrast sensitivity and global and individual IND-VFQ33 scores could differentiate between different grades of disability in the five new groups. Conclusions: Subjective criteria made it possible to objectively reclassify visual disability. Visual disability grades could be redefined to accommodate all from zero-100%.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5259    
    Printed16    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded312    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal