Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 31, Issue 8 , Pages 1537-1543 , August 2005

Changes in quality of life after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia

,Accepted 22 December 2004.

References 

  1. Migneco MK, Pepose JS. Attitudes of successful contact lens wearers toward refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 1996;12:128–133
  2. Koch DD, Kohnen T, Obstbaum SA, Rosen ES. Format for reporting refractive surgical data. [editorial] J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:285–287
  3. Scott IU, Schein OD, West S, et al. Functional status and quality of life measurement among ophthalmic patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:329–335
  4. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Hays RD. Measurement of visual functioning and health-related quality of life in eye disease and cataract surgery. In:  Spilker B editors. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996;p. 1045–1051
  5. McGhee CNJ, Craig JP, Sachdev N, et al. Functional, psychological, and satisfaction outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:497–509
  6. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ. 2002;324:1417–1419
  7. Schein OD, Vitale S, Cassard SD, Steinberg EP. Patient outcomes of refractive surgery; the Refractive Status and Vision Profile. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:665–673
  8. McDonnell PJ, Mangione C, Lee P, et al. Responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to surgical correction of refractive error. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2302–2309
  9. Hammond SD, Puri AK, Ambati BK. Quality of vision and patient satisfaction after LASIK. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15:328–332
  10. Hill JC. An informal satisfaction survey of 200 patients after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg. 2002;18:454–459
  11. Bailey MD, Mitchell GL, Dhaliwal DK, et al. Patient satisfaction and visual symptoms after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1371–1378
  12. Likert RA. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:1–55
  13. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, et al. Development of the ‘Activities of Daily Vision Scale.’ A measure of visual functional status. Med Care. 1992;30:1111–1126
  14. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Keeves JP, Elliott DB. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale for cataract surgery outcomes: re-evaluating validity with Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:2892–2899
  15. Fisher WP. The Rasch debate: validity and revolution in educational measurement. In:  Wilson M editors. Objective Measurement: Theory Into Practice. Vol. 2:Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1994;p. 36–72
  16. Fisher WP, Eubanks RL, Marier RL. Equating the MOS SF36 and the LSU HSI physical functioning scales. J Outcome Meas. 1997;1:329–362
  17. Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:516–552
  18. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70:857–860
  19. Raczek AE, Ware JE, Bjorner JB, et al. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1203–1214
  20. Norquist JM, Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J, Jenkinson C. Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care. 2004;42(suppl):I25–I36
  21. White LJ, Velozo CA. The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:822–831
  22. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81:769–777
  23. Skevington SM, Tucker C. Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. Br J Med Psychol. 1999;72:51–61
  24. Khan-Lim D, Craig JP, McGhee CNJ. Defining the content of patient questionnaires: reasons for seeking laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:788–794
  25. Pointer JS. An optometric population is not the same as the general population. Optometry Pract. 2000;1:92–96
  26. Melki SA, Azar DT. LASIK complications: etiology, management, and prevention. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;46:95–116
  27. Mayo E. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York, NY: MacMillan; 1933;
  28. Erickson DB, Ryan RA, Erickson P, Aquavella JV. Cognitive styles and personality characteristics strongly influence the decision to have photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg. 1995;11:267–274comment by MK Powers, 274

 Presented at the Association for Vision Research in Ophthalmology annual meeting, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, April 2004.Supported by National Health and Medical Research Council Sir Neil Hamilton Fairley Fellowship 0061.Dr. Pesudovs is a consultant to Ultralase. No other author has a financial or proprietary interest in any method or material mentioned.

PII: S0886-3350(05)00080-5

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.12.059

Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 31, Issue 8 , Pages 1537-1543 , August 2005

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution