PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
A multitude of terms have been used to describe automated visual field abnormalities. To date, there is no universally accepted system of definitions or guidelines. Variability among clinicians creates the risk of miscommunication and the compromise of patient care. The purposes of this study were to 1) assess the degree of consistency among a group of neuro-ophthalmologists in the description of visual field abnormalities and 2) to create a consensus statement with standardized terminology and definitions.
In phase one of the study, all neuro-ophthalmologists in Israel were asked to complete a survey in which they described the abnormalities in 10 selected automated visual field tests. In phase 2 of the study, the authors created a national consensus statement on the terminology and definitions for visual field abnormalities using a modified Delphi method. In phase 3, the neuro-ophthalmologists were asked to repeat the initial survey of the 10 visual fields using the consensus statement to formulate their answers.
Twenty-six neuro-ophthalmologists participated in the initial survey. On average, there were 7.5 unique descriptions for each of the visual fields (SD 3.17), a description of only the location in 24.6% (SD 0.19), and an undecided response in 6.15% (SD 4.13). Twenty-two neuro-ophthalmologists participated in the creation of a consensus statement which included 24 types of abnormalities with specific definitions. Twenty-three neuro-ophthalmologists repeated the survey using the consensus statement. On average, in the repeated survey, there were 5.9 unique descriptions for each of the visual fields (SD 1.79), a description of only the location in 0.004% (SD 0.01), and an undecided response in 3.07% (SD 2.11%). Relative to the first survey, there was a significant improvement in the use of specific and decisive terminology.
The study confirmed a great degree of variability in the use of terminology to describe automated visual field abnormalities. The creation of a consensus statement was associated with improved use of specific terminology. Future efforts may be warranted to further standardize terminology and definitions.
In phase one of the study, all neuro-ophthalmologists in Israel were asked to complete a survey in which they described the abnormalities in 10 selected automated visual field tests. In phase 2 of the study, the authors created a national consensus statement on the terminology and definitions for visual field abnormalities using a modified Delphi method. In phase 3, the neuro-ophthalmologists were asked to repeat the initial survey of the 10 visual fields using the consensus statement to formulate their answers.
Twenty-six neuro-ophthalmologists participated in the initial survey. On average, there were 7.5 unique descriptions for each of the visual fields (SD 3.17), a description of only the location in 24.6% (SD 0.19), and an undecided response in 6.15% (SD 4.13). Twenty-two neuro-ophthalmologists participated in the creation of a consensus statement which included 24 types of abnormalities with specific definitions. Twenty-three neuro-ophthalmologists repeated the survey using the consensus statement. On average, in the repeated survey, there were 5.9 unique descriptions for each of the visual fields (SD 1.79), a description of only the location in 0.004% (SD 0.01), and an undecided response in 3.07% (SD 2.11%). Relative to the first survey, there was a significant improvement in the use of specific and decisive terminology.
The study confirmed a great degree of variability in the use of terminology to describe automated visual field abnormalities. The creation of a consensus statement was associated with improved use of specific terminology. Future efforts may be warranted to further standardize terminology and definitions.
摘要：
已经使用了许多术语来描述自动视野异常。迄今为止,没有普遍接受的定义或准则体系。临床医生之间的差异会造成沟通失误和患者护理妥协的风险。这项研究的目的是1）评估一组神经眼科医生在视野异常描述中的一致性程度，以及2）以标准化的术语和定义创建共识声明。
在研究的第一阶段，以色列的所有神经眼科医生都被要求完成一项调查,他们在10项选定的自动视野测试中描述了异常.在研究的第二阶段，作者使用改良的Delphi方法就视野异常的术语和定义发表了全国共识声明.在第3阶段，神经眼科医生被要求使用共识声明重复对10个视野的初步调查，以制定他们的答案。
26名神经眼科医生参与了初步调查。平均而言,每个视野有7.5个独特的描述(SD3.17)，仅对位置的描述为24.6%(SD0.19)，尚未确定的反应为6.15％（SD4.13）。22位神经眼科医生参与了一项共识声明的创建，其中包括24种具有特定定义的异常类型。23名神经眼科医生使用共识声明重复了这项调查。平均而言,在反复调查中，每个视野有5.9个独特的描述(SD1.79)，仅对位置的描述为0.004%(SD0.01)，尚未确定的反应为3.07%（SD2.11%）。相对于第一次调查，在具体和决定性术语的使用方面有了显著的改进.
该研究证实了在使用术语描述自动视野异常时存在很大程度的变异性。达成共识声明与改进特定术语的使用有关。未来可能需要努力进一步标准化术语和定义。
在研究的第一阶段，以色列的所有神经眼科医生都被要求完成一项调查,他们在10项选定的自动视野测试中描述了异常.在研究的第二阶段，作者使用改良的Delphi方法就视野异常的术语和定义发表了全国共识声明.在第3阶段，神经眼科医生被要求使用共识声明重复对10个视野的初步调查，以制定他们的答案。
26名神经眼科医生参与了初步调查。平均而言,每个视野有7.5个独特的描述(SD3.17)，仅对位置的描述为24.6%(SD0.19)，尚未确定的反应为6.15％（SD4.13）。22位神经眼科医生参与了一项共识声明的创建，其中包括24种具有特定定义的异常类型。23名神经眼科医生使用共识声明重复了这项调查。平均而言,在反复调查中，每个视野有5.9个独特的描述(SD1.79)，仅对位置的描述为0.004%(SD0.01)，尚未确定的反应为3.07%（SD2.11%）。相对于第一次调查，在具体和决定性术语的使用方面有了显著的改进.
该研究证实了在使用术语描述自动视野异常时存在很大程度的变异性。达成共识声明与改进特定术语的使用有关。未来可能需要努力进一步标准化术语和定义。
