Abstract
Aim
To assess whether ophthalmic assistants are effective in screening people for glaucoma in India.
Methodology
The study subjects were examined by both trained ophthalmic assistants and an ophthalmologist in both hospital and community settings. Specific tests for the diagnosis of glaucoma suspects included visual field examination using frequency doubling technology perimetry, intraocular pressure measurement (Tonopen), A-scan central anterior chamber depth measurement and dilated optic disc examination. The findings recorded by the ophthalmic assistants were masked to the ophthalmologist to avoid measurement bias.
Results
In the hospital setting, there was a substantial level of agreement between the ophthalmic assistants and the ophthalmologist in the diagnosis of glaucoma suspects (89.29%, k=0.7, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.54–0.86). The diagnostic accuracy of the ophthalmic assistants in detecting glaucoma suspects was high for sensitivity (95.2%, 95% CI=91.4–97.7%) but lower for specificity at 71.4% (95% CI=60.0–78.7%).
In the community setting, there was a moderate level of agreement between the ophthalmic assistants and the ophthalmologist in the diagnosis of glaucoma suspects (78.23%, k=0.50, 95% CI=0.37–0.64). The diagnostic accuracy of the ophthalmic assistants in detecting glaucoma suspects was moderate for sensitivity (82.9, 95% CI=69.7–91.5%) but lower for specificity at 76.8% (95% CI=72.7–79.5%).
Conclusion
Ophthalmic assistants can be used for opportunistic case detection of glaucoma suspects in the community. Structured training of the ophthalmic assistants together with enhanced clinical experience would improve their performance in detecting glaucoma suspects in the community.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ 2004; 82 (11): 844–851.
Hitchings RA . Glaucoma screening. Br J Ophthalmol 1993; 77 (6): 326.
Murthy GV, Gupta SK, Bachani D, Jose R, John N . Current estimates of blindness in India. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89 (3): 257–260.
Vijaya L, George R, Baskaran M, Arvind H, Raju P, Ramesh SV et al. Prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in an urban south Indian population and comparison with a rural population. The Chennai Glaucoma Study. Ophthalmology 2008; 115 (4): 648–654.
Vijaya L, George R, Arvind H, Baskaran M, Ve Ramesh S, Raju P et al. Prevalence of primary angle-closure disease in an urban south Indian population and comparison with a rural population. The Chennai Glaucoma Study. Ophthalmology 2008; 115 (4): 655–660.
Ramakrishnan R, Nirmalan PK, Krishnadas R, Thulasiraj RD, Tielsch JM, Katz J et al. Glaucoma in a rural population of southern India: the Aravind comprehensive eye survey. Ophthalmology 2003; 110 (8): 1484–1490.
Dandona L, Dandona R, Mandal P, Srinivas M, John RK, McCarty CA et al. Angle-closure glaucoma in an urban population in southern India. The Andhra Pradesh eye disease study. Ophthalmology 2000; 107 (9): 1710–1716.
Dandona L, Dandona R, Srinivas M, Mandal P, John RK, McCarty CA et al. Open-angle glaucoma in an urban population in southern India: the Andhra Pradesh eye disease study. Ophthalmology 2000; 107 (9): 1702–1709.
Palimkar A, Khandekar R, Venkataraman V . Prevalence and distribution of glaucoma in central India (Glaucoma Survey 2001). Indian J Ophthalmol 2008; 56 (1): 57–62.
Raychaudhuri A, Lahiri SK, Bandyopadhyay M, Foster PJ, Reeves BC, Johnson GJ . A population based survey of the prevalence and types of glaucoma in rural West Bengal: the West Bengal Glaucoma Study. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89 (12): 1559–1564.
Jacob A, Thomas R, Koshi S, Braganza A, Muliyil J . Prevalence of primary glaucoma in an urban south Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol 1998; 46 (2): 81–86.
George R, Vijaya L . First World Glaucoma day, March 6, 2008: tackling glaucoma challenges in India. Indian J Ophthalmol 2008; 56 (2): 97–98.
Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120 (6): 701–713; discussion 829–830.
The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): the relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 130 (4): 429–440.
Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E . Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121 (1): 48–56.
Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Hussein M . Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120 (10): 1268–1279.
Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 126 (4): 487–497.
Johnson ZK, Griffiths PG, Birch MK . Nurse prescribing in glaucoma. Eye 2003; 17 (1): 47–52.
Wormald RP, Rauf A . Glaucoma screening. J Med Screen 1995; 2 (2): 109–114.
Banes M, Culham L, Crowston J, Bunce J, Khaw P . An optometrist's role of comanagement in a hospital glaucoma clinic. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2000; 20: 351–359.
Oster J, Culham LE, Daniel R . An extended role for the hospital optometrist. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999; 19 (4): 351–356.
Theodossiades J, Murdoch I, Cousens S . Glaucoma case finding: a cluster-randomised intervention trial. Eye 2004; 18 (5): 483–490.
Henson DB, Spencer AF, Harper R, Cadman EJ . Community refinement of glaucoma referrals. Eye 2003; 17 (1): 21–26.
Foster A, Wormald R, van de Heide A, Templeton K, Minassian D . Evaluation of ophthalmoscopy by nonophthalmologists in diagnosing chronic glaucoma in West Africa. Eye 1989; 3 (5): 647–650.
Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ . The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86 (2): 238–242.
Devereux JG, Foster PJ, Baasanhu J, Uranchimeg D, Lee PS, Erdenbeleig T et al. Anterior chamber depth measurement as a screening tool for primary angle-closure glaucoma in an East Asian population. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118 (2): 257–263.
Azuara-Blanco A, Burr J, Thomas R, Maclennan G, McPherson S . The accuracy of accredited glaucoma optometrists in the diagnosis and treatment recommendation for glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91 (12): 1639–1643.
Bowling B, Chen SD, Salmon JF . Outcomes of referrals by community optometrists to a hospital glaucoma service. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89 (9): 1102–1104.
Spry PG, Spencer IC, Sparrow JM, Peters TJ, Brookes ST, Gray S et al. The Bristol Shared Care Glaucoma Study: reliability of community optometric and hospital eye service test measures. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83 (6): 707–712.
Lester M, Mermoud A, Achache F, Roy S . New Tonopen XL: comparison with the Goldmann tonometer. Eye 2001; 15 (Part 1): 52–58.
Bandyopadhyay M, Raychaudhuri A, Lahiri SK, Schwartz EC, Myatt M, Johnson GJ . Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry with the Tonopen for measuring intraocular pressure in a population-based glaucoma survey in rural West Bengal. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2002; 9 (3): 215–224.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, the Department for International Development for the financial support, all ophthalmic assistants, community-based rehabilitation workers and the study participants for taking part in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sinha, S., Astbury, N. Evaluation of the effectiveness of ophthalmic assistants as screeners for glaucoma in North India. Eye 25, 1310–1316 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2011.154
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2011.154
