Abstract
This article is a systematic review of evidence regarding the impact of different lighting conditions on the vision and quality of life (QoL) of people with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). A systematic literature search was carried out using CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Embase, and Ovid Nursing Database for studies: published up to April 2019; including people diagnosed with POAG; and assessing visual function or QoL in response to changing lighting/luminance levels or glare. Two researchers independently screened studies for eligibility. Data were extracted from eligible studies regarding study design, participant characteristics, outcomes, and results. Quality of included studies was critically appraised. Of 8437 studies, 56 eligible studies were included. Studies investigated the effects of lighting on the following domains among people with POAG: QoL (18/56), psychophysical measures (16/56), functional vision (10/56), activities of daily living (10/56), and qualitative findings (2/56). POAG negatively affects low-luminance contrast sensitivity, glare symptoms, and dark adaptation time and extent. In vision-related QoL questionnaires, people with POAG report problems with lighting, glare, and dark adaptation more frequently than any other ___domain. These problems worsen with progressing visual field loss. Early-stage POAG patients experience significantly more difficulties in low-luminance or changing lighting conditions than age-matched controls (AMCs), challenging perceptions of early-stage POAG as asymptomatic. However, performance-based studies seldom show significant differences between POAG participants and AMCs on tasks simulating daily activities under non-optimal lighting conditions. Further research with larger samples is required to optimise ambient and task-oriented lighting that can support patients’ adaptation to POAG.
摘要
本篇文章是关于不同照明条件对原发性开角型青光眼 (POAG) 患者视力和生活质量影响的研究的系统回顾。研究对CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Embase and Ovid Nursing Database六个数据库进行系统文献检索, 截止发表日期为2019年4月。检索内容包括诊断为POAG的患者, 在变换照明设备/光照水平或炫光的情况下评估人群的视功能和生活质量。两名研究者独立筛选符合标准的受试者。从实验设计, 入选者标准, 结果与结论中挑选合格的研究并提取数据。入选研究的质量经过了严格的评估。
在8437项研究中, 共有56项研究符合入选标准。在POAG患者中调查光照对以下因素的影响: 生活质量 (18/56),心理物理学干预 (16/56), 功能性视力 (10/56), 日常活动 (10/56) 和定性发现 (2/56)。
POAG会影响患者的低亮度对比敏感度, 炫光症状, 暗适应的时间和程度。在视觉生活质量调查问卷中, 根据POAG患者反馈, 照明设备, 炫光和暗适应的问题较其它问题更多见。这些问题随着进行性视野的缺失而严重, 与同年龄对照组相比 (AMC), POAG患者在发病的早期在低亮度和不同亮度切换的环境中会面临更多的困难, 这对之前POAG患者早期阶段没有症状的认知进行了挑战。但是, 基于性能方面的研究很少显示POAG参与者和AMC在模拟非最佳照明条件下日常活动方面有显着差异。 需要对较大的样本进行进一步研究, 以优化环境照明和面向任务的照明, 以支持患者适应POAG。未来亟待大样本的研究为POAG患者提供优化环境和适合工作的照明。
Similar content being viewed by others
Login or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Jonas JB, Aung T, Bourne RR, Bron AM, Ritch R, Panda-Jonas S. Glaucoma. Lancet. 2017;390:2183–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31469-1.
Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262 LP–267. http://bjo.bmj.com/content/90/3/262.abstract.
Tham Y-C, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng C-Y. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmol. 2014;121:2081–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013.
Goh YW, Ang GS, Azuara-Blanco A. Lifetime visual prognosis of patients with glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;39:766–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02559.x.
Crabb DP. A view on glaucoma-are we seeing it clearly? Eye. 2016;30:304–13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26611846.
Bierings RAJM, van Sonderen FLP, Jansonius NM. Visual complaints of patients with glaucoma and controls under optimal and extreme luminance conditions. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96:288–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13695.
Angeles-Han ST, Griffin KW, Harrison MJ, Lehman TJA, Leong T, Robb RR, et al. Development of a vision-related quality of life instrument for children ages 8-18 years for use in juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:1254–61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21678564.
Kmet LM, Lee RC, Cook LS. HTA Initiative #13. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. HTA Initiative. 2004. https://www.ihe.ca/advanced-search/standard-quality-assessment-criteria-for-evaluating-primary-research-papers-from-a-variety-of-fields.
Derby GS, Chandler PA, O’Brien ME. The light sense in early glaucoma: the smallest difference in brightness perceptible to the light adapted eye (light difference). JAMA Ophthalmol. 1929;1:692–703. 10.1001/archopht.1929.00810010718004
Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ Br Med J. 2013;346:f167 http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f167.abstract.
Sherwood MB, Garcia-Siekavizza A, Meltzer MI, Hebert A, Burns AF, McGorray S. Glaucoma’s impact on quality of life and its relation to clinical indicators: A pilot study11The authors have no proprietary interest in the development or marketing of this or a competing instrument. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:561–6.
Goldberop I, Clement CI, Chiang TH, Walt JG, Lee LJ, Graham S, et al. Assessing quality of life in patients with glaucoma using the glaucoma quality of life-15 (GQL-15) questionnaire. J Glaucoma. 2009;18. https://journals.lww.com/glaucomajournal/Fulltext/2009/01000/Assessing_Quality_of_Life_in_Patients_With.2.aspx.
Skalicky SE, Fenwick E, Martin KR, Crowston J, Goldberg I, McCluskey P. Impact of age-related macular degeneration in patients with glaucoma: understanding the patients’ perspective. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;44:377–87.
Nelson P, Aspinall P, O’Brien C. Patients’ perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: A pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:546–52.
Lee BL, Gutierrez P, Gordon M, Wilson MR, Cioffi GA, Ritch R, et al. The glaucoma symptom scale: a brief index of glaucoma-specific symptoms. JAMA Ophthalmol. 1998;116:861–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.116.7.861. Available from
Mogil RS, Tirsi A, Lee JM, Tello C, Park SC. Glaucoma patient–reported concerns and associated factors. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;178:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.03.009.
Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O, Worton B, O’Brien C. Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:139–50.
Onakoya AO, Mbadugha CA, Aribaba OT, Ibidapo OO. Quality of life of primary open angle glaucoma patients in Lagos, Nigeria: clinical and sociodemographic correlates. J Glaucoma. 2012;21:287–95.
Zhou C, Qian S, Wu P, Qiu C. Quality of life of glaucoma patients in China: Sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological correlates - a cross-sectional study. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:999–1008.
Sencanic I, Gazibara T, Dotlic J, Stamenkovic M, Jaksic V, Bozic M, et al. Validation of the glaucoma quality of life-15 questionnaire in serbian language. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018;11:1674–84. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30364180.
Lee JWY, Chan CWS, Chan JCH, Li Q, Lai JSM. The association between clinical parameters and glaucoma-specific quality of life in Chinese primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Hong Kong Med J. 2014;20:274–8.
Aspinall PA, Johnson ZK, Azuara-Blanco A, Montarzino A, Brice R, Vickers A. Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:1907–15.
Aspinall PA, Hill AR, Nelson P, O’brien C, O’connell E, McCloughan L, et al. Quality of life in patients with glaucoma: a conjoint analysis approach. Vis Impair Res. 2005;7:13–26.
Janz NK, Wren PA, Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Guire KE. Quality of life in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:887–97.
Daruka R, Kuzhuppilly NIR, Dev S, Patil SN, Rajendraprasad S. Correlation of central field index (10-2 visual field analysis) and activity limitation with increasing severity of glaucoma using glaucoma activity limitation-9 questionnaire. Indian J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2018;66:1098–103. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30038150.
Mbadugha CA, Onakoya AO, Aribaba OT, Akinsola FB. A comparison of the NEIVFQ25 and GQL-15 questionnaires in Nigerian glaucoma patients. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:1411–9.
Kumar S, Thakur S, Ichhpujani P. The impact of primary open-angle glaucoma: comparison of vision-specific (National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25) and disease-specific (Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 and Viswanathan 10) patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019;67:83–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30574899.
Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, Poinoosawmy D, Fontana L, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, et al. Severity and Stability of glaucoma: patient perception compared with objective measurement. JAMA Ophthalmol. 1999;117:450–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.117.4.450.
Wren PA, Guire KE, Niziol LM, Janz NK, Gillespie BW, Musch DC. Contrasting the use of 2 vision-specific quality of life questionnaires in subjects with open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:403–11.
Ansari EA, Morgan JE, Snowden RJ. Psychophysical characterisation of early functional loss in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:1131–5.
Lahav K, Levkovitch-Verbin H, Belkin M, Glovinsky Y, Polat U. Reduced mesopic and photopic foveal contrast sensitivity in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129:16–22.
Bierings RAJM, de Boer MH, Jansonius NM. Visual performance as a function of luminance in glaucoma: the De Vries-Rose, Weber’s, and Ferry-Porter’s LawDe Vries-Rose, Weber’s, and Ferry-Porter’s law in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59:3416–23. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-22497.
Hertenstein H, Bach M, Gross NJ, Beisse F. Marked dissociation of photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity even in normal observers. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254:373–84.
Bierings RAJM, Overkempe T, van Berkel CM, Kuiper M, Jansonius NM. Spatial contrast sensitivity from star- to sunlight in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma. Vis Res. 2019;158:31–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2019.01.011.
Klein J, Pierscionek BK, Lauritzen J, Derntl K, Grzybowski A, Zlatkova MB. The effect of cataract on early stage glaucoma detection using spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity tests. PLoS One. 2015;10:1–17.
Siah WF, O’Brien C, Loughman JJ. Macular pigment is associated with glare-affected visual function and central visual field loss in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102:929–35.
Zuege P, Drance SM. Studies of dark adaptation of discrete paracentral retinal areas in glaucomatous subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 1967;64:56–63.
Drum B, Armaly MF, Huppert W. Scotopic sensitivity loss in glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 1986;104:712–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1986.01050170102031.
Jonas JB, Zäch F-M, Naumann GOH. Dark adaptation in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous optic nerve atrophy. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1990;228:321–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00920055.
Bierings RAJM, Kuiper M, Van Berkel CM, Overkempe T, Jansonius NM. Foveal light and dark adaptation in patients with glaucoma and healthy subjects: a case-control study. PLoS One. 2018;13:1–11.
Arvind H, Klistorner A, Grigg J, Graham SL. Low-luminance contrast stimulation is optimal for early detection of glaucoma using multifocal visual evoked potentials. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:3744–50.
Chu PHW, Chan HHL, Brown B. Glaucoma detection is facilitated by luminance modulation of the global flash multifocal electroretinogram. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:929–37.
Velten IM, Horn FK, Korth M, Velten K. The b-wave of the dark adapted flash electroretinogram in patients with advanced asymmetrical glaucoma and normal subjects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:403 LP–409. http://bjo.bmj.com/content/85/4/403.abstract.
Glovinsky Y, Quigley HA, Drum B, Bissett RA, Jampel HD. A whole-field scotopic retinal sensitivity test for the detection of early glaucoma damage. JAMA Ophthalmol. 1992;110:486–90. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1992.01080160064031.
Hu CX, Zangalli C, Hsieh M, Gupta L, Williams AL, Richman J, et al. What do patients with glaucoma see? Visual symptoms reported by patients with glaucoma. Am J Med Sci. 2014;348:403–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0000000000000319.
Bhorade AM, Perlmutter MS, Wilson B, Kambarian J, Chang S, Pekmezci M, et al. Differences in vision between clinic and home and the effect of lighting in older adults with and without glaucomadifferences in vision between clinic and homedifferences in vision between clinic and home. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131:1554–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.4995.
Yonge AV, Swenor BK, Miller R, Goldhammer V, West SK, Friedman DS, et al. Quantifying fall-related hazards in the homes of persons with glaucoma. Ophthalmol. 2017;124:562–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.11.032.
Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL. Low vision perspectives on glaucoma. Clin Exp Optom. 1998;81:280–9.
Carta A, Braccio L, Belpoliti M, Soliani L, Sartore F, Gandolfi SA, Maraini G. Self-assessment of the quality of vision: association of questionnaire score with objective clinical tests. Curr Eye Res. 1998;17:506–12.
Carta A, Braccio L, Belpoliti M, Soliani L, Sartore F, Gandolfi SA, et al. Self-assessment of the quality of vision: association of questionnaire score with objective clinical tests. Curr Eye Res. 2003;17:506–12.
Tatemichi M, Nakano T, Hayashi T, Tanaka K, Hiro H, Miyamoto T, et al. Symptoms related to glaucomatous visual field abnormalities among male Japanese workers in a population-based setting. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:546–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01988.x.
Willis A, Anderson SJ. Effects of Glaucoma and Aging on Photopic and Scotopic Motion Perception. Invest Ophthalmol. 2000;41:325–35.
Lenoble Q, Lek JJ, Mckendrick AM. Visual object categorisation in people with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:1585–90.
Roux-Sibilon A, Rutgé F, Aptel F, Attye A, Guyader N, Boucart M, et al. Scene and human face recognition in the central vision of patients with glaucoma. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:1–19.
Hoeft WW, Hughes MK. A comparative study of low-vision patients: their ocular disease and preference for one specific series of light transmission filters. Optom Vis Sci. 1981;58. https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Fulltext/1981/10000/A_Comparative_Study_of_Low_Vision_Patients__Their.9.aspx.
Brunnström G, Sörensen S, Alsterstad K, Sjöstrand J. Quality of light and quality of life – the effect of lighting adaptation among people with low vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:274–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2004.00192.x.
Khadka J, Fenwick EK, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Item banking enables stand-alone measurement of driving ability. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93:1502–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000958.
Janz NK, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Wren PA, Niziol LM. Evaluating clinical change and visual function concerns in drivers and nondrivers with glaucoma. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:1718–25.
Tam ALC, Trope GE, Buys YM, Yang Y, Shen C, Jin YP. Self-perceived Impact of glaucomatous visual field loss and visual disabilities on driving difficulty and cessation. J Glaucoma. 2018;27:981–6.
Bhorade AM, Yom VH, Barco P, Wilson B, Gordon M, Carr D. On-road driving performance of patients with bilateral moderate and advanced glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;166:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.02.031.
Lorenzana L, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, Mayer J, Palejwala N, Kulkarni K, et al. A new method of assessing ability to perform activities of daily living: design, methods and baseline data. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2009;16:107–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286580902738142.
Kulkarni KM, Mayer JR, Lorenzana LL, Myers JS, Spaeth GL. Visual field staging systems in glaucoma and the activities of daily living. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154:445–.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2012.03.030.
Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Steinmann WC. Assessment of function related to vision (AFREV). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2006;13:67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286580500428500.
Burton R, Crabb DP, Smith ND, Glen FC, Garway-Heath DF. Glaucoma and reading: exploring the effects of contrast lowering of text. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89. https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Fulltext/2012/09000/Glaucoma_and_Reading___Exploring_the_Effects_of.10.aspx.
Turano KA, Massof RW, Quigley HA. A self-assessment instrument designed for measuring independent mobility in rp patients: generalizability to glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2874–81.
Green J, Siddall H, Murdoch I. Learning to live with glaucoma: a qualitative study of diagnosis and the impact of sight loss. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:257–67.
Glen FC, Crabb DP. Living with glaucoma: a qualitative study of functional implications and patients’ coping behaviours. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015;15:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-015-0119-7.
Spaeth G, Walt J, Keener J. Evaluation of quality of life for patients with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:3–14. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939405008779.
Zenouda A, Lombardi M, Gutman E, Brasnu E, Hamard P, Sahel JA, et al. Effect of different lightning conditions on daily living activities of glaucoma patients. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2016.0554.
Shikder S, Mourshed M, Price A. Therapeutic lighting design for the elderly: a review. Perspect Public Health. 2011;132:282–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913911422288.
Vandenbroeck S, De Geest S, Zeyen T, Stalmans I, Dobbels F. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO’s) in glaucoma: a systematic review. Eye]. 2011;25:555–77. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21423144.
Kimlin JA, Black AA, Wood JM. Nighttime driving in older adults: effects of glare and association with mesopic visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:2796–803. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-21219.
Bowers AR, Meek C, Stewart N. Illumination and reading performance in age-related macular degeneration. Clin Exp Optom. 2001;84:139–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2001.tb04957.x.
Fosse P, Valberg A. Lighting needs and lighting comfort during reading with age-related macular degeneration. J Vis Impair Blind. 2004;98:389–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0409800702.
Asiedu K, Abu SL. The impact of topical intraocular pressure lowering medications on the ocular surface of glaucoma patients: a review. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2019;31:8–15. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452232518301008.
Kanthan GL, Wang JJ, Rochtchina E, Mitchell P. Use of antihypertensive medications and topical beta-blockers and the long-term incidence of cataract and cataract surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1210 LP–1214. http://bjo.bmj.com/content/93/9/1210.abstract.
Kirwan JF, Lockwood AJ, Shah P, Macleod A, Broadway DC, King AJ, et al. Trabeculectomy in the 21st Century: a multicenter analysis. Ophthalmol. 2013;120:2532–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.049.
Purpura K, Kaplan E, Shapley RM. Background light and the contrast gain of primate P and M retinal ganglion cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1988;85:4534–7.
Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;107:453–64.
Swanson WH, Sun H, Lee BB, Cao D. Responses of primate retinal ganglion cells to perimetric stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:764–71.
McKendrick AM, Badcock DR, Morgan WH. Psychophysical measurement of neural adaptation abnormalities in magnocellular and parvocellular pathways in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:1846–53.
Mutlukan E. A comparison of automated static dark stimuli with the Humphrey STATPAC program in glaucomatous visual field loss. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:175–84.
van den Berg TJTP, René van Rijn LJ, Kaper-Bongers R, Vonhoff DJ, Völker-Dieben HJ, Grabner G. et al. Disability glare in the aging eye. Assessment and impact on driving. J Optom. 2009;2:112–8.
Green AJ. Visual evoked potentials, electroretinography, and other diagnostic approaches to the visual system. In: Aminoff’s electrodiagnosis in clinical neurology. Elsevier; 2012. p. 477–503.
Derby GS, Waite JH, Kirk EB. Further studies on the light sense in early glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1926;24:92–104.
Marlow SB. Field of vision in chronic glaucoma; a comparison of fields with full and with reduced illumination. Arch Ophthalmol. 1947;38:43–56. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20258236.
Ramulu P. Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20:92–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19240541.
Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Boer R, Rosen E, Driving PN. simulation as a performance-based test of visual impairment in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2012;21:221–7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21467952.
Nassiri N, Mehravaran S, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Coleman AL. National eye institute visual function questionnaire: usefulness in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90. https://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Fulltext/2013/08000/National_Eye_Institute_Visual_Function.5.aspx.
Wang Y, Alnwisi S, Ke M. The impact of mild, moderate, and severe visual field loss in glaucoma on patients’ quality of life measured via the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 Questionnaire: A meta-analysis. Medcine. 2017;96:e8019–e8019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29310323.
Owsley C, Ghate D, Kedar S. Vision and Aging. In: Wiley Handbook on the Aging Mind and Brain. 2018. p. 296–314.
Acknowledgements
This review was supported by funds from an unrestricted investigator initiated grant awarded to David P Crabb by Santen. Santen had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
DPC has received unrestricted research funding from Roche, Santen and Allergan. DPC has received speaker’s fees from Roche, Allergan, THEA and Bayer. DPC acts as a consultant for Centervue. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Enoch, J., Jones, L., Taylor, D.J. et al. How do different lighting conditions affect the vision and quality of life of people with glaucoma? A systematic review. Eye 34, 138–154 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0679-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0679-5
This article is cited by
-
Crosslinked Chitosan-Gellan Gum Nanoparticles for Enhanced Ocular Delivery of Citicoline in Glaucoma Management: Fabrication, Optimization, and Characterization
Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation (2025)
-
Correlation of contrast sensitivity with ganglion cell/inner plexiform layer thickness and damage ___location in glaucoma with varying severity
Eye (2024)
-
Quality of life and associated factors among patients with glaucoma attending at Boru Meda General Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia
Scientific Reports (2024)
-
Medications for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder associated with increased risk of developing glaucoma
Eye (2024)
-
Patient-reported vision impairment in low luminance predicts multiple falls
BMC Geriatrics (2023)
