The direction of research into visual disability and quality of life in glaucoma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Glaucoma will undoubtedly impact on a person's ability to function as they go about their day-to-day life. The purpose of this study is to investigate the amount of published knowledge in quality of life (QoL) and visual disability studies for glaucoma, and make comparisons with similar research in other chronic conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature search of the Global Health, EMBASE Psychiatry and MEDLINE databases. Title searches for glaucoma and six other example chronic diseases were entered alongside a selection of keywords chosen to capture studies focusing on QoL and everyday task ability. These results were further filtered during a manual search of resulting abstracts. Outcomes were the number of publications per year for each disease, number relating to QoL and type of glaucoma QoL research.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifteen years ago there were no published studies relating to the impact of glaucoma on QoL but by 2009 this had risen to 1.2% of all glaucoma articles. The number of papers relating to QoL as a proportion of all papers in glaucoma in the past 10 years (0.6%) is smaller than for AMD and some other disabling chronic diseases. Most QoL studies in glaucoma (82%) involve questionnaires.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>QoL studies in glaucoma are increasing in number but represent a tiny minority of the total publications in glaucoma research. There are fewer QoL articles in glaucoma compared to some other disabling chronic conditions. The majority of QoL articles in glaucoma research use questionnaires; performance-based measures of visual disability may offer an additional method of determining how the disease impacts on QoL.</p

The Effect of Auditory Distraction on the Useful Field of View in Hearing Impaired Individuals and its implications for driving

This study assessed whether the increased demand of listening in hearing impaired individuals exacerbates the detrimental impact of auditory distraction on a visual task (useful field of view test), relative to normally hearing listeners. Auditory distraction negatively affects this visual task, which is linked with various driving performance outcomes. Hearing impaired and normally hearing participants performed useful field of view testing with and without a simultaneous listening task. They also undertook a cognitive test battery. For all participants, performing the visual and auditory tasks together reduced performance on each respective test. For a number of subtests, hearing impaired participants showed poorer visual task performance, though not to a statistically significant extent. Hearing impaired participants were significantly poorer at a reading span task than normally hearing participants and tended to score lower on the most visually complex subtest of the visual task in the absence of auditory task engagement. Useful field of view performance is negatively affected by auditory distraction, and hearing loss may present further problems, given the reductions in visual and cognitive task performance suggested in this study. Suggestions are made for future work to extend this study, given the practical importance of the findings

A prospective observational study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for children presenting to emergency departments after head injuries (protocol): The Australasian Paediatric Head Injury Rules Study (APHIRST)

Background: Head injuries in children are responsible for a large number of emergency department visits. Failure to identify a clinically significant intracranial injury in a timely fashion may result in long term neurodisability and death. Whilst cranial computed tomography (CT) provides rapid and definitive identification of intracranial injuries, it is resource intensive and associated with radiation induced cancer. Evidence based head injury clinical decision rules have been derived to aid physicians in identifying patients at risk of having a clinically significant intracranial injury. Three rules have been identified as being of high quality and accuracy: the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH) from Canada, the Children's Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE) from the UK, and the prediction rule for the identification of children at very low risk of clinically important traumatic brain injury developed by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) from the USA. This study aims to prospectively validate and compare the performance accuracy of these three clinical decision rules when applied outside the derivation setting.Methods/design: This study is a prospective observational study of children aged 0 to less than 18 years presenting to 10 emergency departments within the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) research network in Australia and New Zealand after head injuries of any severity. Predictor variables identified in CATCH, CHALICE and PECARN clinical decision rules will be collected. Patients will be managed as per the treating clinicians at the participating hospitals. All patients not undergoing cranial CT will receive a follow up call 14 to 90 days after the injury. Outcome data collected will include results of cranial CTs (if performed) and details of admission, intubation, neurosurgery and death. The performance accuracy of each of the rules will be assessed using rule specific outcomes and inclusion and exclusion criteria.Discussion: This study will allow the simultaneous comparative application and validation of three major paediatric head injury clinical decision rules outside their derivation setting.Trial registration: The study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)- ACTRN12614000463673 (registered 2 May 2014). © 2014 Babl et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd