Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design of low cost glaucoma screening

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 1991 the Netherlands Glaucoma Patient Association organized a glaucoma screening survey. This survey was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a low cost screening setting.

During a screening period of 8 days, 1259 subjects over the age of 49 years were examined by a team of non-ophthalmologically trained students. The following screening methods were used: visual field analysis (Henson CFS3000 perimeter), retinal nerve fiber layer photography (Canon non-mydriatic camera), intraocular pressure measurement (Pulsair non-contact tonometer) and determination of the peripheral anterior chamber depth (slitlamp biomicroscope, the van Herick method). In a later stage, subjects with glaucomatous abnormalities in the visual field and/or the photograph were re-examined by a glaucoma specialist using applanation tonometry, gonioscopy, ophthalmoscopy and Humphrey 30-2 visual field analysis.

The time taken to conduct the individual screening tests in a subject varied from 1 to 5 min: perimetry took 5 min, photography 2 min, tonometry 3 min and angle-width determination 1 min. Fifty-six (4.4%) subjects showed glaucomatous defects in perimetry and/or photography. Thirty-seven could be re-examined and glaucoma was diagnosed in 16 subjects. Visual field defects and glaucomatous abnormalities in the photograph were confirmed by Humphrey perimetry in 72.7% and 35.7% respectively. Sixty-seven (5.3%) subjects had an intraocular pressure above 21 mm Hg, while no cases of angle closure glaucoma were found in this population. The costs of this screening setting were estimated at F1. 48, 60 per screen.

A future low cost screening survey might be limited to non-contact tonometry and visual field analysis with the Henson CFS3000 perimeter or a similar device, using suprathreshold testing with a limited number of points. Screening might be performed by non-medically trained employees. The costs of such a screening program may be estimated at Fl. 16,- per screen and Fl. 1.989,- per glaucoma case using a mobile screening unit (addendum).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilson JMG, Junger F. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Pub Health Paper No 34. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hollows FC, Graham PA. Intra-ocular pressure; glaucoma and glaucoma suspects in a defined population. Br J Ophthalmol 1966; 50: 570–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bengtsson B. The prevalence of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1981; 65: 46–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kahn HA, Milton RC. Alternative definitions of open angle glaucoma: effect on prevalence and associates in the Framingham Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1980; 98: 2172–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gibson JM, Rosenthal AR, Lavery J. A study on the prevalence of eye disease in the elderly in an English community. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1985; 104: 196–203.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Katz J, Royall RM, Quigley HA, Javitt J. Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey. JAMA 1991; 266: 369–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Coffey M, Reidy A, Wormald R, Xing Xian W, Wright L, Courtney P. Prevalence of glaucoma in the west of Ireland. Br J Ophthalmol 1993; 77: 17–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Klein BEK, Klein R, Sponsel WE, Franke T, Cantor LB, Martone J, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmol 1992; 99: 1499–1504.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dielemans I, Vingerling IR, Wolfs R, Hofman A, Grobbee DE, Jong de PTVM. The prevalence of glaucoma in a population-based study in the Netherlands: The Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 1851–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bengtsson B. Incidence of manifest glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1989; 73: 483–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Leske MC, Ederer F, Podgor M. Estimating incidence from age-specific prevalence in glaucoma. Am J Epidemiol 1981; 113: 606–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Podgor MJ, Leske MC, Ederer F. Incidence estimates for lens changes, macular changes, open-angle glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Epidemiol 1983; 118: 206–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brav SS, Kirber HP. Mass screening for glaucoma. JAMA 1951; 17: 1127–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Singh K, Quigley HA, Gottsch JD, Javitt J, et al. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: The Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol 1991; 134: 1102–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tielsch JM. Screening for primary open-angle glaucoma: Alternative strategies and future directions. J Glaucoma 1992; 1: 214–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hoyt WF, Frisen L, Newman NM. Fundoscopy of nerve fiber layer defects in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol 1973; 12: 814–29.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Quigley HA. Examination of the retinal nerve fiber layer in the recognition of early glaucoma damage. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1986; 84: 920–66.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sommer A, Miller NR, Pollack I, Maumenee AE, George T. The nerve fiber layer in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1977; 95: 2149–56.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Henson DB, Bryson H. Clinical results with the Henson-Hamblin CFS2000. In: Greve EL, Heijl A, eds, Seventh International Visual Field Symposium. The Netherlands: W Junk, 1987: 233–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Langerhorst CT, Bakker D, Raakman MAC. Usefulness of the Henson Central Field Screener for the detection of visual field defects, especially in glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 1989; 72: 279–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tuulonen A, Airaksinen PJ, Montagna A, Nieminen H. Screening for glaucoma with a non-mydriatic fundus camera. Acta Ophthalmol 1990; 68: 445–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fisher JH, Watson PG, Spaeth G. A new handheld air impulse tonometer. Eye 1988; 2: 238–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Van Herick W, Shaffer RN, Schwartz A. Estimation of width of angle of anterior chamber. Am J Ophthalmol 1969; 68: 626–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shaffer RN. Stereoscopic manual of gonioscopy., St. Louis: CV Mosby Co, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR, Clinical decisions in glaucoma. St. Louis: CV Mosby, 1993: 52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Quigley HA, Miller NR, Sommer A. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in measurement of optic disk characteristics. Ophthalmology 1988; 95: 350–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Niessen AGJE, van den Berg TJTP, Langerhorst CT, Bossuyt PMM. Grading of retinal nerve fiber layer with a photographic reference set. Am J Ophthalmol 1995; 120: 577–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Niessen AGJE, van den Berg TJTP. Evaluation of grading system for retinal nerve fiber layer photographs in 1941 eyes. Submitted.

  29. Sponsel WE, Ritch R, Stamper R, Higginbotham ET, Anderson DR, Wilson MR, et al. Prevent blindness America visual field screening study. Am J Ophthalmol 1995; 120: 699–708.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang F, Quigley HA, Tielsch JM. Screening for glaucoma in a medical clinic with photographs of the nerve fiber layer. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 796–800.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Atkinson PL, Wishart PK, James JN, Vernon SA, Reid F. Deterioration in the accuracy of the pulsair non-contact tonometer with use: need for regular calibration. Eye 1992; 6: 530–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vermon SA. Reproducibility with the Keeler Pulsair 2000 non-contact tonometer. Br J Ophthalmol 1995; 79: 554–7.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tuck MW, Crick RP. Non-contact tonometry: optometrists' current practice in England and Wales. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1994; 14: 347–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Vernon SA, Henry DJ, Cater L, Jones SJ. Screening for glaucoma in the community by non-ophthalmologically trained staff using semi-automated equipment. Eye 1990; 4: 89–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shiose Y, Kitazawa Y, Tsukahara S, Akamatsu T, Mimkami K, Futa R, et al. Epidemiology of glaucoma in Japan, a nationwide glaucoma survey. Jpn J Ophthalmol 1991; 35: 133–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wilensky JT, Kaufman PL, Frohlichstein D, Gieser DK, Kass MA, Ritch R, et al. Follow-up of angle-closure glaucoma suspects. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 115: 338–46.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Tuck MW, Crick RP. Screening for glaucoma: the time taken by primary examiners to conduct visual field tests in practice. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1994; 14: 351–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Jones SJ, Vernon SA, Cater L, Henry DJ. Costing a community based screening programme for the detection of glaucoma. Eye 1990; 4: 98–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sheldrick JH, Sharp AJH. Glaucoma screening clinic in general practice: prevalence of occult disease, and resource implications. Br J Gen Pract 1994; 44: 561–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Sommer A, Tielsch JM, Katz J, Quigley HA, Gottsch JD, Javitt J, et al. Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black americans. Arch Ophthalmol 1991; 109: 1090–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Leske MC. The epidemiology of open-angle glaucoma: a review. Am J Epidemiol 1983; 118: 166–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Armaly MF. On the distribution of applanation pressure. 1. Statistical features and the effect of age, sex, and family history of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1965; 73: 11–18.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Armaly MF, Krueger DE, Maunder L, Becker B, Hetherington J, Kolker AE, et al. Biostatistical analysis of the collaborative glaucoma study. 1. Summary report of the risk factors for glaucomatous visual-field defects. Arch Ophthalmol 1980; 98: 2163–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. David R, Livingston DG, Luntz MH. Ocular hypertension, along-term follow-up of treated and untreated patients. Br J Ophthalmol 1977; 61: 668–74.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Sommer A. Intraocular pressure and glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1989; 107: 186–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Eddy DM, Sanders LE, Eddy JF. The value of screening for glaucoma with tonometry. Surv Ophthalmol 1983; 28: 194–205.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. De Koning HJ, van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, Boer R, Collette HJA Verbeek ALM, et al. The costs and effects of mass screening for breast cancer. Final report. Dept. of Public Health and Social Medicine, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Glaucoma Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Antoinette G. J. E. Niessen, Christine T. Langerhorst, H. Caroline Geijssen & Erik L. Greve

Authors
  1. Antoinette G. J. E. Niessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine T. Langerhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Caroline Geijssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erik L. Greve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Niessen, A.G.J.E., Langerhorst, C.T., Geijssen, H.C. et al. Design of low cost glaucoma screening. Doc Ophthalmol 93, 293–315 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02569068

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02569068

Key words

Search

Navigation