The accuracy of self-reported family history in glaucoma in Brazil.
Family history
Primary open angle glaucoma
Risk factor
Journal
International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Jun 2024
24 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
04
11
2023
accepted:
15
06
2024
medline:
24
6
2024
pubmed:
24
6
2024
entrez:
24
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the accuracy of a positive self-reported glaucoma family history. Cross-sectional study. Each subject was asked if they had a first-degree relative diagnosed with glaucoma. If their answer was affirmative, the relative was invited to attend on ophthalmic evaluation and underwent complementary exams to confirm or exclude the glaucoma diagnosis. Only one relative was included per subject. We included 204 subjects in the study (102 subjects and their respective relatives). The accuracy of family history of glaucoma was 76.96% of the cases. In the univariable analysis, subjects with college degree had 2.34 [(P = 0.010; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-4.63)], with higher family income 3.72 (P = 0.003; 95% CI 1.57-8.85) and those with health insurance 3.42 (P = 0.001; 95% CI 1.67-6.98) more chances to have a true positive family history for glaucoma. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, none of the variables presented significant association. Around 24% of patients may not provide reliable information about family history for glaucoma. When asking about a glaucoma family history, clinicians should consider the real accuracy of this self-reported data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38913086
doi: 10.1007/s10792-024-03193-8
pii: 10.1007/s10792-024-03193-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
263Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Références
Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FA (2014) The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA 311(18):1901–1911. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.3192
doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.3192
pubmed: 24825645
pmcid: 4523637
Zhang N, Wang J, Li Y, Jiang B (2021) Prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma in the last 20 years: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Sci Rep 11(1):13762. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92971-w
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-92971-w
pubmed: 34215769
pmcid: 8253788
Sakata K, Sakata LM, Sakata VM, Santini C, Hopker LM, Bernardes R et al (2007) Prevalence of glaucoma in a south Brazilian population: projeto glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48(11):4974–4979. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-0342
doi: 10.1167/iovs.07-0342
pubmed: 17962447
Ribeiro GB, Dobri GP, Abe RY (2021) The frequency of blindness and visual impairment in the central-west region of Brazil. Arq Bras Oftalmol 84(4):402–403. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.202100104
doi: 10.5935/0004-2749.202100104
pubmed: 34287517
Leske MC, Connell AM, Wu SY, Hyman LG, Schachat AP (1995) Risk factors for open-angle glaucoma. Barbados Eye Study Arch Ophthalmol 113(7):918–924. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1995.01100070092031
doi: 10.1001/archopht.1995.01100070092031
pubmed: 7605285
Tielsch JM, Katz J, Sommer A, Quigley HA, Javitt JC (1994) Family history and risk of primary open angle glaucoma. Baltim Eye Surv Arch Ophthalmol 112(1):69–73. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1994.01090130079022
doi: 10.1001/archopht.1994.01090130079022
Stein JD, Khawaja AP, Weizer JS (2021) Glaucoma in adults-screening, diagnosis, and management: a review. JAMA 325(2):164–174. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.21899
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21899
pubmed: 33433580
Shin DH, Becker B, Kolker AE (1977) Family history in primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 95(4):598–600. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1977.04450040064007
doi: 10.1001/archopht.1977.04450040064007
pubmed: 849183
Hollands H, Johnson D, Hollands S, Simel DL, Jinapriya D, Sharma S (2013) Do findings on routine examination identify patients at risk for primary open-angle glaucoma? The rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA 309(19):2035–2042. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.5099
doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.5099
pubmed: 23677315
McNaught AI, Allen JG, Healey DL, McCartney PJ, Coote MA, Wong TL et al (2000) Accuracy and implications of a reported family history of glaucoma: experience from the glaucoma inheritance study in Tasmania. Arch Ophthalmol 118(7):900–904
pubmed: 10900101
Green CM, Kearns LS, Wu J, Barbour JM, Wilkinson RM, Ring MA et al (2007) How significant is a family history of glaucoma? Experience from the glaucoma inheritance study in Tasmania. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 35(9):793–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01612.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01612.x
pubmed: 18173405
Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. SAGE Publ, Bloomington
Doshi V, Ying-Lai M, Azen SP, Varma R (2008) Sociodemographic, family history, and lifestyle risk factors for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. The Los Angeles Latino eye study. Ophthalmology 115(4):639–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.05.032
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.05.032
pubmed: 17900693
Leske MC, Wu SY, Hennis A, Honkanen R, Nemesure B (2008) Risk factors for incident open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados eye studies. Ophthalmology 115(1):85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.017
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.017
pubmed: 17629563
Wang Z, Wiggs JL, Aung T, Khawaja AP, Khor CC (2022) The genetic basis for adult onset glaucoma: recent advances and future directions. Prog Retin Eye Res 90:101066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2022.101066
doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2022.101066
pubmed: 35589495
Lee SS, Mackey DA (2022) Glaucoma-risk factors and current challenges in the diagnosis of a leading cause of visual impairment. Maturitas 163:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.05.002
doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.05.002
pubmed: 35597227
Denniston AK, Kyte D, Calvert M, Burr JM (2014) An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures in ophthalmic research. Eye 28(6):637–645. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2014.41
doi: 10.1038/eye.2014.41
pubmed: 24625379
pmcid: 4058607
Abe RY, Diniz-Filho A, Costa VP, Gracitelli CP, Baig S, Medeiros FA (2016) The impact of location of progressive visual field loss on longitudinal changes in quality of life of patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology 123(3):552–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.046
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.046
pubmed: 26704883
Abe RY, Wen LC, Barker GT, Mansberger SL (2018) Psychometric properties of the glaucoma treatment compliance assessment tool (GTCAT) in a Brazilian population. J Glaucoma 27(3):257–265. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000876
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000876
pubmed: 29369851
Althubaiti A (2016) Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc 9:211–217. https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.S104807
doi: 10.2147/jmdh.S104807
pubmed: 27217764
pmcid: 4862344
Castro MC, Massuda A, Almeida G, Menezes-Filho NA, Andrade MV, de Souza Noronha KVM et al (2019) Brazil’s unified health system: the first 30 years and prospects for the future. Lancet 394(10195):345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31243-7
doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31243-7
pubmed: 31303318