| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 34
| Issue : 4 | Page : 404-408 |
|
|
Risk of missed diagnosis of primary open-angle glaucoma by eye care providers
Azadeh Doozandeh, Shahin Yazdani, Mohammad Pakravan, Zohreh Ghasemi, Kiana Hassanpour, Mehdi Hatami, Iman Ansari
Ophthalmic Research Center, Research Institute for Ophthalmology and Vision Science, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence Address:
Azadeh Doozandeh
Research Institute for Ophthalmology and Vision Science, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, No. 23, Paidarfard St., Boostan 9 St., Pasdaran Ave., Tehran
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/joco.joco_296_22
|
|
|
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of opportunistic case finding in glaucoma detection and to determine factors associated with failure of glaucoma detection by eye health providers.
Methods: This study was conducted on 154 new definite primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients presenting to our glaucoma clinic. A questionnaire was prepared to determine if these subjects had sought eye care up to 12 months before presentation. The type of eye care provider and the principal reason for the visit were probed. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of a correct glaucoma diagnosis in their index visit. The secondary outcomes were factors associated with missed POAG diagnosis.
Results: The great majority of study subjects (132 cases, 85.7%) had sought at least one ocular examination within 1 year before presentation. Among these patients, 73 cases (55.3%) had remained undiagnosed after the examination. Among the probed variables, age, gender, visual acuity, visual field defects, intraocular pressure, cup/disc ratio, nerve fiber layer thickness of the worse eye at presentation, and family history of glaucoma were comparable between correctly diagnosed and missed POAGs. The only factors significantly associated with missed POAG diagnosis were lack of significant refractive errors and visiting an optometrist rather than an ophthalmologist.
Conclusions: The efficacy of opportunistic case finding for POAG seems to be less than ideal in our settings. Lack of a significant refractive error and visiting an optometrist rather than an ophthalmologist were associated with a missed diagnosis of POAG. These observations reflect the need to adopt policies to improve glaucoma screening by eye care providers.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
