Search

Reports on the cases of Fusarium keratitis among contact lens users in the U.S. in 2006. Prevalence of Fusarium keratitis in warm climates; Treatments received by patients with Fusarium keratitis; Measures to reduce the risk for microbial keratitis.

Purpose: To develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the impact of glaucoma and treatment, including minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS)., Design: Observational study before and after concomitant cataract and Food and Drug Administration-approved implantable MIGS device surgery., Setting: Survey administration was on a computer, iPad, or similar device., Patient Population: 184 adults completed the baseline survey, 124 a survey 3 months after surgery, and 106 the 1-month test-retest reliability survey. The age range was 37 to 89 (average age = 72). Most were female (57%), non-Hispanic White (81%), and had a college degree (56%)., Main Outcome Measures: The Glaucoma Outcomes Survey (GOS) assesses functional limitations (27 items), vision-related symptoms (7 items), psychosocial issues (7 items), and satisfaction with microinvasive glaucoma surgery (1 item). These multiple-item scales were scored on a 0 to 100 range, with a higher score indicating worse health., Results: Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged from 0.75 to 0.93, and 1-month test-retest intraclass correlations ranged from 0.83 to 0.92 for the GOS scales. Product-moment correlations among the scales ranged from 0.56 to 0.60. Improvement in visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to the 3-month follow-up was significantly related to improvements in GOS functional limitations (r = 0.18, P = .0485), vision-related symptoms (r = 0.19, P = .0386), and psychosocial concerns (r = 0.18, P = .0503). Responders to treatment ranged from 17% for vision-related symptoms to 48% for functional limitations., Conclusions: This study supports using the GOS for ophthalmic procedures such as MIGS. Further evaluation of the GOS in different patient subgroups and clinical settings is needed., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Mary Tyler Moore Vision Initiative Diabetic Retinal Disease (DRD) Clinical Endpoints Workshop was held on October 22, 2022 to accelerate progress toward establishment of useful clinical and research endpoints and development of new therapeutics that have important relevance across the full spectrum of DRD pathology. More than 90 patient representatives, clinicians, scientists, funding and regulatory agencies, diagnostic, therapeutic and biotech industry representatives discussed the needs for new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to prevent and restore retinal neurovascular unit integrity. Phase I of the MTM Vision Initiative plans, notably updating the DRD staging system and severity scale, establishing a human ocular biorepository and resource, and clinical endpoints and biomarker development and validation, was emphasized.

Purpose: To develop a standardized patient-reported outcome measure of visual perceptions and symptoms for implanted premium and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs)., Design: Observational study before and after IOL implants to assess the measure and symptom experience., Participants: Adults scheduled for binocular implantation of the same IOL type completed the survey at baseline prior to surgery (n = 716) and postoperatively (n = 554). Most respondents were female (64%), White (81%), 61 or older (89%), and had some college or more education (62%)., Methods: Administration was by web survey with mail follow-up and phone reminders., Main Outcome Measures: Frequency, severity, and level of symptom bother in the last 7 days for 14 symptoms: (1) glare, (2) hazy vision, (3) blurry vision, (4) starbursts, (5) halos, (6) snowballs, (7) floaters, (8) double images, (9) rings and spider webs, (10) distortion, (11) light flashes with eyes closed, (12) light flashes with eyes open, (13) shimmering images, and (14) dark shadows., Results: The median correlation among having 14 symptoms at baseline was only 0.19. Mean uncorrected binocular visual acuity improved from a preoperative value of 0.47 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; Snellen 20/59) to a postoperative value of 0.12 (20/26) and best-corrected binocular visual acuity improved from 0.23 logMAR (20/34) preoperative to 0.05 logMAR (20/22) postoperative. The most bothersome symptoms were reduced after surgery: preoperative/postoperative glare (84%/36%), blurry vision (68%/22%), starbursts (66%/28%), hazy vision (63%/18%), snowballs (55%/17%), and halos (52%/22%). All symptoms decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) from before to after surgery except for dark crescent-shaped shadows (4%/4%). The percentage of symptoms rated as quite a bit or extremely bothersome declined from before to after surgery except for dark crescent-shaped shadows (29%/32%): blurry vision (54%/15%), snowballs (52%/14%), glare (49%/15%), and halos (46%/14%). Having monofocal IOL implants was associated with significantly more reduction in halos, starbursts, glare, and rings and spider webs, but less improvement in self-reported general vision., Conclusions: This study provides support for the 37-item Assessment of IntraOcular Lens Implant Symptoms (AIOLIS) instrument for use to assess symptoms and general perceptions of vision in clinical studies and clinical care., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To develop a questionnaire with standardized questions and images about visual symptoms and satisfaction administered before and after cataract surgery with monofocal and various (premium) intraocular lenses (IOLs)., Design: A prospective, observational study of cataract surgery patients completing a self-administered questionnaire preoperatively and postoperatively at 4 to 6 months., Participants: Five hundred fifty-four patients with plans to undergo implantation of the same IOL in both eyes on separate occasions in 20 ophthalmology practices., Methods: An 86-item questionnaire with standardized images assessed the following 14 symptoms: glare, blurry vision, starbursts, hazy vision, snowballs, halos, floaters, double images, rings and spider webs, light flashes with eyes closed, distortion, light flashes with eyes open, shimmering images, and dark crescent-shaped shadows., Main Outcome Measures: Symptom severity and level of symptom bother, satisfaction with vision, quality of vision, and ability to see without corrective lenses or eyeglasses., Results: Except for dark crescent-shaped shadows, the report of visual symptoms significantly decreased postoperatively. Best uncorrected binocular visual acuity improved from 0.47 (20/59 Snellen visual acuity values) ± 0.35 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) preoperatively to 0.12 (20/26 Snellen visual acuity values) ± 0.12 logMAR postoperatively. Patients' ratings of intermediate vision as good to excellent improved significantly from 12% preoperatively to 71% postoperatively, and patients' ratings of distance vision improved from 8% preoperatively to 85% postoperatively. After surgery, 84% reported that they were somewhat, very, or completely satisfied with their vision. Most patients (88%) reported that they could see pretty well, very well, or perfectly well without corrective lenses after surgery., Conclusions: The Assessment of IntraOcular Lens Implant Symptoms questionnaire can be used across a wide variety of IOLs to evaluate visual symptoms and satisfaction with a growing segment of the market, premium IOLs, that target intermediate and near vision, in addition to distance vision. Compared to patients receiving monofocal IOLs, patients receiving premium IOLs appear to be more challenging to satisfy because of their requirements for distance, intermediate, and near vision, and their desire to be free of eyeglasses postoperatively. This instrument provides a structured, uniform tool for regulators, researchers, and ophthalmologists in everyday practice to gain insights into patients' experiences., Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To validate a vascular severity score as an appropriate output for artificial intelligence (AI) Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) through comparison with ordinal disease severity labels for stage and plus disease assigned by the International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity, Third Edition (ICROP3), committee., Design: Validation study of an AI-based ROP vascular severity score., Participants: A total of 34 ROP experts from the ICROP3 committee., Methods: Two separate datasets of 30 fundus photographs each for stage (0-5) and plus disease (plus, preplus, neither) were labeled by members of the ICROP3 committee using an open-source platform. Averaging these results produced a continuous label for plus (1-9) and stage (1-3) for each image. Experts were also asked to compare each image to each other in terms of relative severity for plus disease. Each image was also labeled with a vascular severity score from the Imaging and Informatics in ROP deep learning system, which was compared with each grader's diagnostic labels for correlation, as well as the ophthalmoscopic diagnosis of stage., Main Outcome Measures: Weighted kappa and Pearson correlation coefficients (CCs) were calculated between each pair of grader classification labels for stage and plus disease. The Elo algorithm was also used to convert pairwise comparisons for each expert into an ordered set of images from least to most severe., Results: The mean weighted kappa and CC for all interobserver pairs for plus disease image comparison were 0.67 and 0.88, respectively. The vascular severity score was found to be highly correlated with both the average plus disease classification (CC = 0.90, P < 0.001) and the ophthalmoscopic diagnosis of stage (P < 0.001 by analysis of variance) among all experts., Conclusions: The ROP vascular severity score correlates well with the International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity committee member's labels for plus disease and stage, which had significant intergrader variability. Generation of a consensus for a validated scoring system for ROP SaMD can facilitate global innovation and regulatory authorization of these technologies., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To develop a vision-targeted health-related quality-of-life instrument for patients with glaucoma who are candidates for minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS)., Design: Development of a health-related quality-of-life instrument., Participants: Twelve practicing ophthalmologists and 41 glaucoma patients., Methods: A questionnaire was constructed to assess functional limitations, vision-related symptoms, aesthetics, psychosocial issues, and surgical satisfaction for MIGS candidates. Questions were drafted after a review of the literature and subsequently refined based upon input from 1 physician and 4 patient focus groups. Nineteen cognitive interviews were used to ensure that questions were understandable to respondents., Results: The focus group identified the following key issues and concerns as being important to glaucoma patients: functional limitations (eg, driving), bodily discomfort (eg, stinging from drops), changes in appearance (eg, drooping eyelid), and psychosocial concerns (eg, mental burden associated with a diagnosis of glaucoma, financial burden of treatment). Cognitive interviews resulted in the following improvements to the questionnaire: changes in wording to clarify lighting conditions, and additional questions addressing psychosocial issues, such as job loss, severity of disease, and perception of MIGS., Conclusions: A patient-reported outcomes instrument, the Glaucoma Outcomes Survey, was developed to evaluate MIGS for patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. Next steps include electronic administration to patients selected from the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) registry. An electronic patient-reported outcomes platform will be used to administer the questionnaire before and after MIGS. The questionnaire will improve understanding of how surgical interventions such as MIGS impact vision-targeted health-related quality-of-life in glaucoma patients., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many therapeutic options are available to glaucoma patients. One recent therapeutic option is minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. It is unclear how patients view different treatments and which patient-reported outcomes would be most relevant in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. We developed a questionnaire for patients eligible for MIGS devices and a patient preference study to examine the value patients place on certain outcomes associated with glaucoma and its therapies., Objectives: To summarize the progress to date., Methods: Questionnaire development: We drafted the questionnaire items based on input from one physician and four patient focus groups, and a review of the literature. We tested item clarity with six cognitive interviews. These items were further refined. Patient preference study: We identified important benefit and risk outcomes qualitatively using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with patients who were eligible for MIGS devices. We then prioritized these outcomes quantitatively using best-worst scaling methods., Results: Questionnaire testing: Three concepts were deemed relevant for the questionnaire: functional limitations, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. We will evaluate the reliability and validity of the 52-item draft questionnaire in an upcoming field test. Patient preference study: We identified 13 outcomes that participants perceived as important. Outcomes with the largest relative importance weights were "adequate IOP control" and "drive a car during the day.", Conclusions: Patients have the potential to steer clinical research towards outcomes that are important to them. Incorporating patients' perspectives into the MIGS device development and evaluation process may expedite innovation and availability of these devices.

Purpose: To quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients., Design: A cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS)., Participants: Two hundred seventy-four participants newly diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate open angle glaucoma from three private practices and one academic medical center in the United States., Methods: We designed a preference-elicitation survey based on findings from 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients with glaucoma (reported elsewhere). The survey asked participants to rate the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completion of 13 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants a subset of four outcomes from the possible thirteen, and participants chose the most important and least important outcome. Outcomes included in the survey pertain to maintaining ability to perform vision-dependent activities of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception), minimizing need to take glaucoma drops, not experiencing ocular surface symptoms (e.g., red eyes, teary eyes), and having adequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP). We administered the survey online and analyzed response patterns using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of different outcomes., Main Outcome: Ordinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights., Results: Between September 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018, we invited 1035 patients to complete our survey, among whom 274 (26%) responded. Most participants were older than 65 years of age (146/274, 53%) and currently on IOP-lowering drops (179/274, 65%). Participants identified that outcomes with the largest relative importance weight were having "adequate IOP control" and ability to "drive a car during the day," and the outcomes with the smallest relative importance weights were "maintaining appearance of the eye" and "reducing the number of IOP-lowering drops"., Conclusions: Determining the relative importance of glaucoma outcomes to patients can help researchers design studies that may better inform clinical and regulatory decision-making. Although IOP is an outcome that researchers often measure in glaucoma clinical trials, patients also prioritized outcomes related to the ability to perform vision-dependent activities such as driving., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST See ICMJE form and Funding

Purpose: To explore patients' perspectives and experiences living with glaucoma and identify important benefits and risks that patients consider before electing for new glaucoma treatments, such as minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices., Design: Semi-structured, in-person qualitative interviews with patients seen at the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute., Participants: Adults older than 21 years of age who were suspected or diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) (and thus eligible for treatment with a MIGS procedure) presenting to a glaucoma clinic in Baltimore, Maryland, between May and December 2016., Method: We conducted in-person interviews with patients recently diagnosed with ocular hypertension or POAG. We focused on considerations patients take into account when deciding between different treatments. We used the framework approach to code and analyze the qualitative data. Considerations of special interest to us were those that can be translated into outcomes (or endpoints) in clinical trials., Main Outcome Measures: Patients' perspectives concerning outcomes that matter to them when managing ocular hypertension or POAG., Results: Ten male and fifteen female patients participated in our study. The median participant age was 69 years (range 47 - 82 years). We identified outcomes that patients expressed as important, which we grouped into four thematic categories: (1) limitations in performing specific vision-dependent activities of daily living; (2) problems with general visual function or perceptions; (3) treatment burden, including ocular adverse events; and (4) intraocular pressure (IOP). All 25 participants expressed some concerns with their ability to perform vision-dependent activities, such as reading and driving. Most (23/25) participants had an opinion about IOP, and among those currently taking ocular hypotensive eye drops, all recognized the relationship between eye drops and IOP., Conclusion: We have identified outcomes that matter to patients who are deciding between different treatments for ocular hypertension and POAG, such as the ability to drive or maintain mobility outside the home. These outcomes will be important in future evaluations of new treatments for glaucoma., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTERST No conflicting relationship exists for any author

With the increasing incidence of more pathogens that can cause microbial keratitis (MK), it is necessary to periodically reassess disinfection multipurpose solutions testing requirements to ensure that relevant organisms to challenge them are being used. Current testing protocols have included common pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Serratia marcescens, Candida albicans, and Fusarium solani but have omitted less common pathogens such as Acanthamoeba. Specifically, Acanthamoeba sp. has recently been identified as a prevalent cause of MK in certain countries. Developing an appropriate protocol for this unique organism presents a challenge, given its two distinct life stages, methods to grow the organism, encystment techniques, and many other parameters that can affect testing outcomes. Therefore, the appropriate combination of these parameters is crucial to developing a protocol that ensures consistent, accurate results. The FDA has recognized the importance of establishing a standardized testing protocol for this pathogen and embarked on research efforts to provide a recommended testing protocol for testing contact lens care products.

Importance: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) are needed., Objective: To develop PRO measures to assess satisfaction, eye-related symptoms, and their effect on functioning and well-being following LASIK based on patient and expert input., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Patient-Reported Outcomes With LASIK (PROWL) studies were prospective observational studies of patients undergoing LASIK surgery for myopia, hyperopia, or astigmatism. PROWL-1 was a single-center study of active-duty US Navy personnel and PROWL-2 was a 5-center study of civilians. PROWL-1 enrolled 262 active-duty service personnel and PROWL-2 enrolled 312 civilians 21 years or older who spoke English; 241 individuals in PROWL-1 and 280 in PROWL-2 completed a baseline questionnaire before surgery. The analytic sample included those also completing 1 or more follow-up questionnaires: 240 (99.6%) of those in PROWL-1 and 271 (94.4%) of those in PROWL-2. Questionnaires were self-administered through the internet preoperatively and at 1 and 3 months postoperatively in both studies and at 6 months postoperatively in PROWL-1. PROWL-1 began in August 2011 and was completed May 30, 2014; PROWL-2 began in July 2012 and was completed June 27, 2014. Data were analyzed from June 28, 2014, to October 24, 2016., Main Outcomes and Measures: Scales assessing visual symptoms (double images, glare, halos, and starbursts), dry eye symptoms, satisfaction with vision, and satisfaction with LASIK surgery. Items from the National Eye Institute (NEI) Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument (NEI-RQL-42), NEI Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ), and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) were included. All scales are scored on a 0 to 100 possible range. Construct validity and responsiveness to change were evaluated (comparing scores before and after surgery)., Results: The median age of the 240-person PROWL-1 analytic sample was 27 years (range, 21-52 years); 49 were women (20.4%). The median age of the 271-person PROWL-2 analytic sample was 30 years (range, 21-57 years); 147 were women (54.2%). Internal consistency reliabilities for the 4 visual symptom scales ranged from 0.96 to 0.98 in PROWL-1 and from 0.95 to 0.97 in PROWL-2. The median (interquartile range) test-retest intraclass correlation was 0.69 (0.57-0.79) and 0.76 (0.68-0.84) in PROWL-1 and PROWL-2, respectively. Product-moment correlations of satisfaction with surgery with visual symptom scales at follow-up evaluations ranged from r = 0.24 to r = 0.49. Measures improved from baseline to follow-up, with effect sizes of 0.14 to 1.98, but scores on the NEI-RQL-42 glare scale worsened at the 1-month follow-up. Hours of work did not change significantly from baseline to 1-month follow-up, with the mean number (mean [SD] difference) in PROWL-1 of 41.7 vs 40.9 hours (-0.8 [18.7]) and in PROWL-2 of 38.8 vs 38.2 hours (-0.6 [17.1])., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of these studies support the reliability and validity of visual symptom scales to evaluate the effects of LASIK surgery in future studies.

The premarket review of contact lenses and accessories by the FDA involves the assessment of nonclinical and clinical information in support of clearance or approval of marketing applications. The review process for these medical devices, including attributes, which may contribute to comfort for lens wearers, is summarized, as are mechanisms by which FDA continues to assess and improve recommendations through the review process and through collaboration with external entities.

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes should be collected using validated questionnaires prior to and following laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery., Objective: To report the frequency of patient-reported visual symptoms, dry eye symptoms, satisfaction with vision, and satisfaction with LASIK surgery in the Patient-Reported Outcomes With LASIK (PROWL) studies., Design, Setting, and Participants: The PROWL-1 and PROWL-2 studies were prospective, observational studies conducted from September 13, 2011, to June 27, 2014. The PROWL-1 study was a single-military center study of 262 active-duty Navy personnel 21 to 52 years of age. The PROWL-2 study was a study of 312 civilians 21 to 57 years of age conducted at 5 private practice and academic centers. The LASIK surgery and the postoperative care were performed based on the usual practice and clinical judgment at the site. Participants completed a self-administered, web-based questionnaire, preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 and 3 months (the PROWL-1 and -2 studies) and at 6 months (the PROWL-2 study)., Exposures: Participants underwent LASIK surgery for myopia, hyperopia, and/or astigmatism., Main Outcomes and Measures: Visual symptoms (double images, glare, halos, and/or starbursts), dry eye symptoms, participant satisfaction (with vision and LASIK surgery), and clinical measures (visual acuity, refractive error, and slitlamp and posterior segment eye examination findings) were assessed preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively., Results: A total of 262 participants were enrolled in the PROWL-1 study (mean [SD] age, 29.1 [6.1] years), and a total of 312 participants were enrolled in the PROWL-2 study (mean [SD] age, 31.5 [7.3] years). Visual symptoms and dissatisfaction with vision were common preoperatively. Overall, the prevalence of visual symptoms and dry eye symptoms decreased, although a substantial percentage of participants reported new visual symptoms after surgery (43% [95% CI, 31%-55%] from the PROWL-1 study and 46% [95% CI, 33%-58%] from the PROWL-2 study at 3 months). The percentages of participants in the PROWL-1 study with normal Ocular Surface Disease Index scores were 55% (95% CI, 48%-61%) at baseline, 66% (95% CI, 59%-72%) at 3 months, and 73% (95% CI, 67%-79%) at 6 months. The percentages of participants in the PROWL-2 study with normal Ocular Surface Disease Index scores were 44% (95% CI, 38%-50%) at baseline and 65% (95% CI, 59%-71%) at 3 months. Of those participants who had normal scores at baseline in both the PROWL-1 and -2 studies, about 28% (95% CI, 19%-37%) had mild, moderate, or severe dry eye symptoms at 3 months. While most participants were satisfied, the rates of dissatisfaction with vision ranged from 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) to 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%), and the rates of dissatisfaction with surgery ranged from 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) to 2% (95% CI, 1%-5%)., Conclusions and Relevance: The systematic administration of a questionnaire to patients who have undergone LASIK surgery is a new approach to assess symptoms and satisfaction. Our findings support the need for adequate counseling about the possibility of developing new symptoms after LASIK surgery.

Importance: Minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices are one option for lowering intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma., Objective: To examine how often existing clinical studies of MIGS devices registered on ClinicalTrials.gov measure patient-centric outcomes that patients value directly., Design, Setting, and Participants: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, a registry of publicly and privately supported clinical studies, on February 20, 2015, for records of MIGS device studies involving patients with glaucoma. Two investigators independently abstracted study design and outcome details from eligible records. We classified outcomes as patient-centric or not patient-centric using a prespecified definition., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patient-centric and nonpatient-centric outcomes registered on ClinicalTrials.gov., Results: We identified 51 eligible studies specifying 127 outcomes. Reduction in intraocular pressure was the most frequent outcome specified (78/127; 61%) and a primary outcome in 41 studies. Patient-centric outcomes-such as adverse events (n = 19; 15%), topical medication use (n = 16; 13%), visual acuity (n = 4; 3%), and health-related quality of life (n = 1; 1%)-were less frequently specified (n = 40; 32%) and a primary outcome in only 12 studies., Conclusion and Relevance: Patient-centric outcomes that provide insight into the relative desirability and acceptability of the benefits and risks of MIGS devices are not well represented in current clinical studies., Competing Interests: Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

Objective: To compare participants' responses to Web-based and paper-and-pencil versions of an ophthalmic, patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire., Design: Questionnaire development., Participants: Matched subjects with ocular surface disease (OSD) (n = 68) and without OSD (controls, n = 50)., Methods: Subjects completed a standard, paper-and-pencil and a Web-based version of the same questionnaire in randomized order. The administered questionnaire included several ophthalmic PRO subscales: the National Eye Institute's (NEI's) Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument's Clarity of Vision, Near Vision, Far Vision, Glare, Symptoms, Worry, and Satisfaction with Correction subscales; the Ocular Surface Disease Index's (OSDI's) Symptoms subscale; and the NEI's Visual Function Questionnaire's Driving subscale. Possible scores for each subscale ranged from 0 (no difficulty) to 100 (most difficulty). Agreement of subscale scores between modes of administration was assessed using the Bland-Altman approach and multivariable logistic regression., Main Outcome Measures: Subscale scores and an unweighted average total score for each mode of administration., Results: Mean differences in scores between modes of administration ranged from -2.1 to +2.3 units. Although no differences were found to be statistically significant, the Worry and Satisfaction with Correction subscales approached statistical significance (P = 0.07 and 0.08, respectively). Although most subscale mean differences in score did not differ significantly by gender, age (≥40 vs. <40 years), disease status (OSD vs. control), order of administration, or time between completion of the questionnaires, women had slightly greater score differences than men for the Driving (P = 0.04) and Clarity of Vision (P = 0.03) subscales; those with OSD had greater score differences for Clarity of Vision than did controls (P = 0.0006); and those aged ≥40 years had slightly greater differences in OSDI Symptoms subscale than those aged <40 years (P = 0.04)., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this Food and Drug Administration and NEI collaboration is the first study to evaluate the equivalence of Web-based and paper versions of ophthalmic PRO questionnaires. We found no evidence of clinically significant differences between scores obtained by the 2 modes for any of the examined subscales. A Web-based instrument should yield scores equivalent to those obtained by standard methods, providing a useful tool that may facilitate ophthalmic innovation., Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To present a format for reporting outcomes of aberrometer-guided refractive procedures., Setting: SurgiVision Consultants, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona, and Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Rockland, Maryland, USA., Methods: Reports of standard refractive and visual outcomes (uncorrected visual acuity, manifest refractive spherical equivalent, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity) should be provided for any refractive surgery report. Comparison of postoperative uncorrected visual acuity to preoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity should be included. Aberration reports should convert 2nd-order terms to refractions (measured in diopters) and use standard refractive reporting methods. Changes in coma, spherical aberration, and root-mean-square changes should be described using statistical methods for aggregate data. Underlying statistics should be reported., Results: Aberration changes are well described by the mean error of the attempted versus achieved outcomes, comparison of the mean changes, and stability over time. Ancillary plots include histogram representation of the postoperative scores. Additional reports of visual function should be included, as appropriate., Conclusion: Use of standardized tables and graphs permits qualitative and quantitative comparison of outcomes of refractive treatment with wavefront-guided lasers. Modifications of the recommended formats can be expected over time.