Abstract
Background
Registration as sight impaired allows access to services important for patients. The rates of sight impairment due to visual field loss are underestimated. Previous work has shown that evaluation of visual field defects in both eyes produces poor agreement among ophthalmologists for categorisation of patients as eligible for sight impairment registration.
Aim
To evaluate the impact of binocular summation of both eye glaucomatous visual field defects on agreement for sight impairment registration.
Methods
Thirty consultant ophthalmologists (Graders), graded 50 glaucomatous visual field sets. Each consisted of both monocular fields and summated binocular plots. Graders classified the visual field sets as sight impaired (SI), severely sight impaired (SSI) or neither. Trichotomous, (SI, SSI or no sight impairment) and dichotomous (any sight impairment versus no sight impairment) concordance values were estimated for the group of graders as a whole and for glaucoma and non-glaucoma experts.
Results
For trichotomous analysis the overall kappa agreement rate was 0.29; for dichotomous analysis it was 0.40. There was no material difference between glaucoma experts and non-experts.
Conclusion
Overall agreement was modest. Grading for SI showed the poorest levels of agreement. Using binocular fields does not appear to improve concordance for sight impairment registration. Moreover, there is no difference in agreement between glaucoma and non-glaucoma experts. An overall score for visual disability using mean deviation may be a more pragmatic approach.
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
Dementia and Disabilities Unit, Social Care, A and DD. Certificate of Vision Impairment: Explanatory Notes for Consultant Ophthalmologists and Hospital Eye Clinic Staff in England [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Dec 11]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/637590/CVI_guidance.pdf?_ga=2.102512711.753927259.1566766300-126121671.1539292144.
Quartilho A, Simkiss P, Zekite A, Xing W, Wormald R, Bunce C. Leading causes of certifiable visual loss in England and Wales during the year ending 31 March 2013. Eye. 2016:602–7.
Pujol Carreras O, Anton A, Mora C, Pastor L, Gudiña S, Maull R, et al. Quality of life in glaucoma patients and normal subjects related to the severity of damage in each eye. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol Engl Ed. 2017;92:521–7.
Barry RJ, Murray PI. Unregistered visual impairment: is registration a failing system? Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:995.
King AJW, Reddy A, Thompson JR, Rosenthal AR. The rates of blindness and of partial sight registration in glaucoma patients. Eye. 2000;14:613–9.
Robinson R, Deutsch J, Jones HS, Youngson-Reilly S, Hamlin DM, Dhurjon L, et al. Unrecognised and unregistered visual impairment. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:736–40.
King A, Azuara-Blanco A, Tuulonen A. Glaucoma. BMJ. 2013;346:f3518.
Guerin E, Bouliotis G, King A. Visual impairment registration: evaluation of agreement among ophthalmologists. Eye. 2014;28:808.
Crabb DP, Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Simulating binocular visual field status in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:1236–41.
Fleiss JL, Spitzer RL, Endicott J, Cohen J. Quantification of agreement in multiple psychiatric diagnosis. JAMA Psychiatry. 1972;26:168–71.
Krippendorff K. Association, agreement, and equity. Qual Quant. 1987;21:109–23.
Hayes AF, Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas. 2007;1:77–89.
Fleiss JL, Shrout PE. Approximate interval estimation for a certain intraclass correlation coefficient. Psychometrika. 1978;43:259–62.
Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:613–9.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–8.
Sim J, Wright CC. The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005;85:257–68.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
Krippendorff K. Estimating the reliability, systematic error and random error of interval data. Educ Psychol Meas. 1970;30:61–70.
Krippendorff K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology [Internet]. fourth. Ca, USA: SAGE Publications; 2018. Available from: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/content-analysis/book258450.
United States of America D of SSA. 2.00-Special Senses and Speech-Adult [Internet]. [cited 2019 Nov 12]. Available from: https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/2.00-SpecialSensesandSpeech-Adult.htm#2_03.
Jampel HD, Friedman DS, Quigley H, Miller R. Correlation of the binocular visual field with patient assessment of vision. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1059–67.
Medeiros FA, Gracitelli CPB, Boer ER, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM, Rosen PN. Longitudinal changes in quality of life and rates of progressive visual field loss in glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:293–301. 2014/10/16.
Bunce C, Xing W, Wormald R. Causes of blind and partial sight certifications in England and Wales: April 2007–March 2008. Eye. 2010;24:1692.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jawaid, I., Stead, R.E., Rotchford, A.R. et al. Agreement amongst consultant ophthalmologists on levels of visual disability required for eligibility for certificate of sight impairment. Eye 35, 1644–1650 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-01126-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-01126-0
