Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening for Glaucoma

Why is the Disease Underdetected?

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

A review of 15 population-based glaucoma prevalence surveys in Western Europe, the US, the West Indies and Japan shows that the proportion of patients with the condition who had previously gone undetected was generally at least 50%.

Possible reasons for underdetection of glaucoma have been considered in relation to England and Wales, where most patients with glaucoma are initially detected during the course of sight tests in connection with providing spectacle lenses. It was found that: (i) a high proportion of the population over 40 years of age attends fairly regularly for a sight test; (ii) the standard of primary testing for glaucoma is very uneven — those examiners who test comprehensively detect about 50% more cases than average; and (iii) referral criteria, which reflect the need not to overload hospital eye clinics, inevitably exclude many patients who are in apparently low risk categories.

Both the population survey data and the subsequent analysis suggest that underdetection is most pronounced in patients with glaucoma of the normal pressure type.

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bankes JLK, Perkins ES, Tsoliakis S, et al. Bedford glaucoma survey. BMJ 1968; 1: 791–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kahn HA, Leibowitz HM, Ganley JP, et al. The Framingham Eye Study: I. Outline and major prevalence findings. Am J Epidemiol 1977; 106: 17–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Katz J, et al. Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma. JAMA 1991; 266: 369–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Singh K, et al. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol 1991; 134: 1102–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Martinez GS, Campbell AJ, Reinken J, et al. Prevalence of ocular disease in a population study of subjects 65 years and older. Am J Ophthalmol 1982; 94: 181–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bengtsson B. Manifest glaucoma in the aged I: occurrence nine years after a population survey. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1981; 59: 321–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Klein BEK, Klein R, Sponsel WE, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 1499–504

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Coffey M, Reidy A, Wormald R, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in the West of Ireland. Br J Ophthalmol 1993; 77: 17–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dielmans I, Vingerling JR, Wolfs RCW, et al. The prevalence of POAG in a population based study in the Netherlands. Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 1851–5

    Google Scholar 

  13. Giuffre G, Giammanco R, Dardanoni G, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma and distribution of intraocular pressure in a population: the Casteldaccia Eye Study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1995; 73: 222–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ringvold A, Blika S, Elsas T, et al. The Middle-Norway eye-screening study: II. Prevalence of simple and capsular glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1991; 69: 273–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Leibowitz HM, Krueger DE, Maunder LR, et al. The Framingham Eye Study monograph. Surv Ophthalmol 1980; 24 Suppl.: 335–610

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Department of Health and Social Security. Blindness and partial sight in England 1969–1976: reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects No 129. London: HMSO, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ghatour IM, Allan D, Foulds W. Common causes of blindness and visual handicap in the West of Scotland. Br J Ophthalmol 1983; 67: 209–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fuchs J, Nissen KR, Goldschmidt E. Glaucoma blindness in Denmark. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1992; 70: 73–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Crick RP, Reynolds PM, Daubs JG. Epidemiological aspects of primary open-angle glaucoma. Glaucoma 1983; 5: 4–14

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sommer A, Tielsch JM, Katz J, et al. Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans. Arch Ophthalmol 1991; 109: 1090–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Davanger M, Ringvold A, Blika S. The probability of having glaucoma at different IOP levels. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1991; 69: 565–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sheldrick JH, Ng C, Austin DJ, et al. An analysis of referral routes and diagnostic accuracy in cases of suspected glaucoma. Ophthalm Epidemiol 1994; 1: 31–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Brittain GPH, Austin DJ, Kelly SP. A prospective study to determine sources and diagnostic accuracy of glaucoma referrals. Health Trends 1988; 20: 43–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Clearkin L, Harcourt B. Referral pattern of true and suspected glaucoma to an adult ophthalmic out-patient clinic. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 1983; 103: 284–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ross JC, Bron AJ, Reeves BC, et al. Detection of optic nerve damage in ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol 1985; 69: 897–903

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hitchings RA. Low tension glaucoma — is treatment worth-while? Eye 1988; 2: 636–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hitchings RA, Wu J, Poinoosawmy D, et al. Surgery for normal tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1995; 79: 402–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilson R, Walker AM, Dueker DK, et al. Risk factors for rate of progression of glaucomatous visual field loss: a computer-based analysis. Arch Ophthalmol 1982; 100: 737–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vogel R, Crick RP, Newson RB, et al. Association between intraocular pressure and loss of visual field in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1990; 74: 3–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Grant WM, Burke JF. Why do some people go blind from glaucoma? Ophthalmology 1982; 89: 991–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Jay JL, Murdoch JR. The rates of visual field loss in untreated primary open angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1993; 77: 176–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Wallace J, Lovell HG. Glaucoma and intraocular pressure in Jamaica. Am J Ophthalmol 1969; 67: 93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Mason RP, Kosoko O, Wilson R, et al. National survey of the prevalence and risk factors of glaucoma in St. Lucia, West Indies. Ophthalmology 1989; 96: 136–8

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shiose Y, Kitazawa Y, Tsukahara S, et al. Epidemiology of glaucoma in Japan: a nationwide glaucoma survey. Jpn J Ophthalmol 1991; 35: 133–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Harrison RJ, Wild JM, Hobley AJ. Referral patterns to an ophthalmic out-patient clinic by general practitioners and ophthalmic opticians and the role of these professionals in screening for ocular disease. BMJ 1988; 297: 1162–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Foster K, Jackson B, Thomas M, et al. General Household Survey 1993. London: Government Statistical Service, 1993 (OPCS Series GHS no.24)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Optics at a glance. 1995 ed. London: The Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians, 1995

  41. Ritchie J, Jacoby A, Bone M. Access to primary health care: an enquiry carried out on behalf of the United Kingdom health departments. London: HMSO, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Tuck M, Crick R. Testing and referral for chronic glaucoma. Health Trends 1989; 21: 131–4

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tuck MW. Referrals for suspected glaucoma — an International Glaucoma Association survey. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1991; 11: 22–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Tuck MW, Crick RP. Relative effectiveness of different modes of glaucoma screening in optometric practice. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1993; 13: 227–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Sommer A, et al. Family history and risk of primary open angle glaucoma: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 69–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Daubs JG, Crick RP. Effect of refractive error on the risk of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma. Trans Ophthal Soc UK 1981; 101: 121–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Tomlinson A, French CN. The prediction of glaucoma from ocular biometric data. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1975; 52: 817–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Tuck MW, Crick RP. Use of visual field tests in glaucoma detection by optometrists in England and Wales. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1994; 14: 227–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Tuck MW, Crick RP. The cost effectiveness of various modes of screening for primary open angle glaucoma. Ophthalm Epidemiol. In press

  52. Tuck MW, Crick RP. Efficiency of referral for suspected glaucoma. BMJ 1991; 302: 998–1000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Tuck MW, Crick RP. Optometrists referral criteria for suspected glaucoma. Health Trends 1992; 153–7

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vernon SA, Henry DJ. Do optometrists screen for glaucoma? Eye 1989; 3: 747–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Strong NP. How optometrists screen for glaucoma: a survey. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1992; 12: 3–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Gottlieb LK, Schwartz B, Pauker SG. Glaucoma screening: a cost effectiveness analysis. Surv Ophthalmol 1983; 28: 206–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Wilson MR, Khanna S. The value of different screening techniques for glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1994; 5(11): 69–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Wormald RPI, Rauf A. Glaucoma screening. J Med Screening 1995; 2: 109–14

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Tuck MW, Crick RP. The proportion of confirmed glaucomas who have a family history of glaucoma [letter]. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1996; 16: 86–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England. 1995 ed. London: HMSO, 1995

  63. Crick RP, Tuck MW. How can we improve the detection of glaucoma? BMJ 1995; 310: 346–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Tuck MW, Crick RP. Non-contact tonometry: optometrists’ current practice in England and Wales. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1994; 14: 347–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Augsburger A, Alexander KL. Measurements of intraocular pressure with multiple non-contact tonometers. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1982; 59: 342–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Atkinson PL, Wishart PK, James JN, et al. Deterioration in the accuracy of the Pulsair non-contact tonometer with use: need for regular calibration. Eye 1992; 6: 530–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College Hospital, International Glaucoma Association, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, England

    Maurice W. Tuck &  Ronald P. Crick (Hon. Consultant Ophthalmologist)

Authors
  1. Maurice W. Tuck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald P. Crick
    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

Tuck, M.W., Crick, R.P. Screening for Glaucoma. Drugs & Aging 10, 1–9 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-199710010-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-199710010-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation