I Goemaere | PubMed Health

PubMed2003

[Is cheating with automatic perimetry possible?].

INTRODUCTION: Automatic perimetry examination requires the patient's cooperation, but the programs used check response validity. This study evaluated the possibility of patient cheating on this examination. MATERIALS AND METHOD: This study investigated 27 visual fields of automatic perimetry with patients who had no ophthalmological history. Each subject had to reproduce a visual field loss that was observed for 5 minutes (two diffuse losses, five fields reflecting hemianopsia, four reflecting quadranopsia, two tubular losses, five nasal steps, nine absolute and arciform losses). The 24-2 Fastpac of the Humphrey field analyzer and the G2 of the Octopus perimeter were used for this study. RESULTS: Simple deficits were easy to reproduce, but visual field defects are often deeper and simulated test results tend to be too perfect. On the other hand, complex defects such as arciform scotoma or nasal steps were more difficult to reproduce. Visual field defect simulations were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable. CONCLUSION: This study reports on whether it is possible to cheat with automatic perimetry. The different parameters analyzed by computer programs are not able to detect cheating patients.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

[How patients react when glaucoma is diagnosed?].

PURPOSE: Evaluate the psychological consequences of announcing the diagnosis of glaucoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred patients completed a 20-item questionnaire designed to analyze the context in which glaucoma was discovered and the patients' reaction to this diagnosis. Behavioral modification in patients and their families are specified as well as their perception of the information received. COMMENTS: Most patients had open-angle glaucoma and showed either an anxious or a passive reaction to the announcement of the diagnosis. Severe anxiety led to prescription of minor tranquilizers or antidepressants in 11% of cases. Nearly half of the patients declared that they had modified their behavior after receiving the diagnosis, indicating a need to play an active role in disease management. A large majority of the patients were conscious of the risk of blindness related to glaucoma; however, they did not feel ill but rather handicapped . Most were dissatisfied with the information provided by their doctor and sought other sources of information. CONCLUSION: Announcing a diagnosis of glaucoma is a decisive step in the physician-patient relationship, known to be important in future treatment compliance. Better adapted information with regular reevaluation of the need for additional information is necessary. The psychological impact should be evaluated regularly in order to promote an active role on the part of the patient and avoid a decline in quality of life.

Aged↗