Qing Wang, Ives A Valenzuela, Noga Harizman, Prakash Gorroochurn, Desiree R Torres, Stefania C Maruri, Daniel F Diamond, Jason D Horowitz, David S Friedman, C Gustavo De Moraes, George A Cioffi, Jeffrey M Liebmann, Lisa A Hark
{"title":"青光眼筛查和高危人群转诊危险因素:曼哈顿视力筛查研究(NYC-SIGHT)的随访研究。","authors":"Qing Wang, Ives A Valenzuela, Noga Harizman, Prakash Gorroochurn, Desiree R Torres, Stefania C Maruri, Daniel F Diamond, Jason D Horowitz, David S Friedman, C Gustavo De Moraes, George A Cioffi, Jeffrey M Liebmann, Lisa A Hark","doi":"10.1097/IJG.0000000000002521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Prcis: </strong>Community-based eye health screenings that incorporated fundus photography and optometric exams in a high-risk NYC population effectively identified a higher than average number of participants that required an in-office glaucoma evaluation.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To report glaucoma screening rates and risk factors associated with referral for in-office glaucoma evaluation in the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this 5-year, cluster-randomized clinical trial, eligible individuals aged 40 and older were recruited from affordable housing developments and senior centers. Visual acuity with correction, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements, and non-mydriatic fundus photography were conducted. Images were graded by a glaucoma specialist; those with an abnormal image were referred; those who failed the screening or had an unreadable fundus image were examined by the study optometrist. Chi-squared tests and stepwise multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine factors associated with glaucoma referral.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>708 participants were screened; 189 (26.6%) were referred for an in-office glaucoma evaluation due to an abnormal optic disc image (n=138) or abnormal optometric exam (n=51). Those referred had a mean age 68.5 ±11.7 years and were 60% female, 57% Black, and 37% Hispanic. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression showed participants with self-reported glaucoma (OR 8.096, 95% CI 4.706-13.928, P =0.000), IOP > 23 mmHg at the screening (OR 3.944, 95% CI 1.704-9.128, P =0.001), or wore prescription eyeglasses (OR 1.601, 95% CI 1.034-2.48, P =0.035) had higher odds of being referred for an in-office glaucoma evaluation. Of those referred, 106 (56%) attended, 36 participants (34%) were diagnosed with glaucoma and 38 participants (35.8%) as glaucoma suspects.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings support public health approaches that focus community-based eye health screenings on high-risk populations and prioritize underserved communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":15938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Glaucoma","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Glaucoma Screening and Referral Risk Factors in a High-Risk Population: Follow-up Study of the Manhattan Vision Screening Study (NYC-SIGHT).\",\"authors\":\"Qing Wang, Ives A Valenzuela, Noga Harizman, Prakash Gorroochurn, Desiree R Torres, Stefania C Maruri, Daniel F Diamond, Jason D Horowitz, David S Friedman, C Gustavo De Moraes, George A Cioffi, Jeffrey M Liebmann, Lisa A Hark\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/IJG.0000000000002521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Prcis: </strong>Community-based eye health screenings that incorporated fundus photography and optometric exams in a high-risk NYC population effectively identified a higher than average number of participants that required an in-office glaucoma evaluation.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To report glaucoma screening rates and risk factors associated with referral for in-office glaucoma evaluation in the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this 5-year, cluster-randomized clinical trial, eligible individuals aged 40 and older were recruited from affordable housing developments and senior centers. Visual acuity with correction, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements, and non-mydriatic fundus photography were conducted. Images were graded by a glaucoma specialist; those with an abnormal image were referred; those who failed the screening or had an unreadable fundus image were examined by the study optometrist. Chi-squared tests and stepwise multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine factors associated with glaucoma referral.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>708 participants were screened; 189 (26.6%) were referred for an in-office glaucoma evaluation due to an abnormal optic disc image (n=138) or abnormal optometric exam (n=51). Those referred had a mean age 68.5 ±11.7 years and were 60% female, 57% Black, and 37% Hispanic. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression showed participants with self-reported glaucoma (OR 8.096, 95% CI 4.706-13.928, P =0.000), IOP > 23 mmHg at the screening (OR 3.944, 95% CI 1.704-9.128, P =0.001), or wore prescription eyeglasses (OR 1.601, 95% CI 1.034-2.48, P =0.035) had higher odds of being referred for an in-office glaucoma evaluation. Of those referred, 106 (56%) attended, 36 participants (34%) were diagnosed with glaucoma and 38 participants (35.8%) as glaucoma suspects.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings support public health approaches that focus community-based eye health screenings on high-risk populations and prioritize underserved communities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Glaucoma\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Glaucoma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000002521\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Glaucoma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000002521","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
实践:基于社区的眼科健康筛查,结合眼底摄影和验光检查,在纽约市高风险人群中有效地确定了高于平均水平的需要进行青光眼评估的参与者。目的:报告曼哈顿视力筛查和随访研究(NYC-SIGHT)中青光眼筛查率和与办公室青光眼评估转诊相关的危险因素。方法:在这项为期5年的集群随机临床试验中,从经济适用房开发和老年中心招募了40岁及以上的符合条件的个体。矫正视力,测量眼压(IOP)和无散瞳眼底摄影。图像由青光眼专家评分;影像异常者予以参考;那些没有通过筛查或眼底图像难以辨认的人由验光师进行检查。卡方检验和逐步多变量logistic回归分析确定青光眼转诊相关因素。结果:共筛选708名受试者;189例(26.6%)患者因视盘图像异常(n=138)或验光检查异常(n=51)而接受青光眼检查。这些患者的平均年龄为68.5±11.7岁,60%为女性,57%为黑人,37%为西班牙裔。逐步多因素logistic回归显示,自报青光眼(OR 8.096, 95% CI 4.706-13.928, P=0.000)、筛查时眼压为0.23 mmHg (OR 3.944, 95% CI 1.704-9.128, P=0.001)或戴处方眼镜(OR 1.601, 95% CI 1.034-2.48, P=0.035)的参与者被转到办公室进行青光眼评估的几率更高。其中106人(56%)参加了治疗,36人(34%)被诊断为青光眼,38人(35.8%)被怀疑患有青光眼。结论:我们的研究结果支持将社区眼科健康筛查重点放在高危人群和优先考虑服务不足社区的公共卫生方法。
Glaucoma Screening and Referral Risk Factors in a High-Risk Population: Follow-up Study of the Manhattan Vision Screening Study (NYC-SIGHT).
Prcis: Community-based eye health screenings that incorporated fundus photography and optometric exams in a high-risk NYC population effectively identified a higher than average number of participants that required an in-office glaucoma evaluation.
Purpose: To report glaucoma screening rates and risk factors associated with referral for in-office glaucoma evaluation in the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT).
Methods: In this 5-year, cluster-randomized clinical trial, eligible individuals aged 40 and older were recruited from affordable housing developments and senior centers. Visual acuity with correction, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements, and non-mydriatic fundus photography were conducted. Images were graded by a glaucoma specialist; those with an abnormal image were referred; those who failed the screening or had an unreadable fundus image were examined by the study optometrist. Chi-squared tests and stepwise multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine factors associated with glaucoma referral.
Results: 708 participants were screened; 189 (26.6%) were referred for an in-office glaucoma evaluation due to an abnormal optic disc image (n=138) or abnormal optometric exam (n=51). Those referred had a mean age 68.5 ±11.7 years and were 60% female, 57% Black, and 37% Hispanic. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression showed participants with self-reported glaucoma (OR 8.096, 95% CI 4.706-13.928, P =0.000), IOP > 23 mmHg at the screening (OR 3.944, 95% CI 1.704-9.128, P =0.001), or wore prescription eyeglasses (OR 1.601, 95% CI 1.034-2.48, P =0.035) had higher odds of being referred for an in-office glaucoma evaluation. Of those referred, 106 (56%) attended, 36 participants (34%) were diagnosed with glaucoma and 38 participants (35.8%) as glaucoma suspects.
Conclusion: Our findings support public health approaches that focus community-based eye health screenings on high-risk populations and prioritize underserved communities.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Glaucoma is a peer reviewed journal addressing the spectrum of issues affecting definition, diagnosis, and management of glaucoma and providing a forum for lively and stimulating discussion of clinical, scientific, and socioeconomic factors affecting care of glaucoma patients.