Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members
Abstract Background Visual field (VF) testing in combination with a specialized VF analysis software is critical for characterizing and monitoring visual loss in glaucoma. Although performing glaucoma progression analysis requires original VF data rather than printouts or image files, extent of VF d...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-02-01
|
| Series: | BMC Ophthalmology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02800-z |
| _version_ | 1811171799508975616 |
|---|---|
| author | Masaki Tanito Takeshi Hara Makoto Aihara |
| author_facet | Masaki Tanito Takeshi Hara Makoto Aihara |
| author_sort | Masaki Tanito |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Visual field (VF) testing in combination with a specialized VF analysis software is critical for characterizing and monitoring visual loss in glaucoma. Although performing glaucoma progression analysis requires original VF data rather than printouts or image files, extent of VF data transfer between referring and referred ophthalmologists is unclear. Here, we surveyed glaucoma specialists who belong to the Japan Glaucoma Society (JGS). Methods An internet survey of daily practice patterns regarding electronic VF data transfer at the time of glaucoma referrals (referring/referred) was sent to all 50 JGS board members. The survey consisted with 11 questionnaires, and the response rate was 100%. Results The respondents included 33 university hospital ophthalmologists (66%) (Q1), and those scattered throughout Japan (Q2). All respondents used Humphrey Visual Filed Analyzer (HFA) (Q3) and at least one of a VF progression analysis software (Q4). Ten respondents (20%) actively transferred electronic VF data, while 40 (80%) did not (Q5). The major reasons for not actively transferring data electronically were that there was no support for data transfer by neighboring (n = 26, 65%) and/or own (25, 63%) institutes (Q6). All 40 inactive respondents responded that electronic data transfer is ideal (Q7). All 10 active respondents transferred data using USB flash memory (Q8). Of the 10 active respondents, seven (70%) reported that the percentage of referral letters accompanying electronic VF data in a format that allows for progression analysis from the beginning was less than 25% (Q9). When the referral letters did not accompany the electronic VF data, four (40%) reported that they further requested the data transfer in < 25% of cases (Q10). When the 10 active respondents were requested to transfer data, six (60%) had experienced rejection due to various reasons (Q11). Conclusion An internet survey showed that 80% of the JGS board members were not actively transferring VF data mainly because of the absence of a system in place at institutions for sending and receiving data, although they feel that the electronic VF data transfer is ideal. The results provide basic data for future discussions on the promotion of the VF data transfer. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T17:20:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0c369eab4c55436eb61ac4c664f9943d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2415 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T17:20:07Z |
| publishDate | 2023-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj.art-0c369eab4c55436eb61ac4c664f9943d2023-02-05T12:07:18ZengBMCBMC Ophthalmology1471-24152023-02-012311410.1186/s12886-023-02800-zSurvey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board membersMasaki Tanito0Takeshi Hara1Makoto Aihara2Department of Ophthalmology, Shimane University Faculty of MedicineHara Eye HospitalDepartment of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of TokyoAbstract Background Visual field (VF) testing in combination with a specialized VF analysis software is critical for characterizing and monitoring visual loss in glaucoma. Although performing glaucoma progression analysis requires original VF data rather than printouts or image files, extent of VF data transfer between referring and referred ophthalmologists is unclear. Here, we surveyed glaucoma specialists who belong to the Japan Glaucoma Society (JGS). Methods An internet survey of daily practice patterns regarding electronic VF data transfer at the time of glaucoma referrals (referring/referred) was sent to all 50 JGS board members. The survey consisted with 11 questionnaires, and the response rate was 100%. Results The respondents included 33 university hospital ophthalmologists (66%) (Q1), and those scattered throughout Japan (Q2). All respondents used Humphrey Visual Filed Analyzer (HFA) (Q3) and at least one of a VF progression analysis software (Q4). Ten respondents (20%) actively transferred electronic VF data, while 40 (80%) did not (Q5). The major reasons for not actively transferring data electronically were that there was no support for data transfer by neighboring (n = 26, 65%) and/or own (25, 63%) institutes (Q6). All 40 inactive respondents responded that electronic data transfer is ideal (Q7). All 10 active respondents transferred data using USB flash memory (Q8). Of the 10 active respondents, seven (70%) reported that the percentage of referral letters accompanying electronic VF data in a format that allows for progression analysis from the beginning was less than 25% (Q9). When the referral letters did not accompany the electronic VF data, four (40%) reported that they further requested the data transfer in < 25% of cases (Q10). When the 10 active respondents were requested to transfer data, six (60%) had experienced rejection due to various reasons (Q11). Conclusion An internet survey showed that 80% of the JGS board members were not actively transferring VF data mainly because of the absence of a system in place at institutions for sending and receiving data, although they feel that the electronic VF data transfer is ideal. The results provide basic data for future discussions on the promotion of the VF data transfer.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02800-zVisual fieldElectronic data transferGlaucomaDaily practiceInternet survey |
| spellingShingle | Masaki Tanito Takeshi Hara Makoto Aihara Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members BMC Ophthalmology Visual field Electronic data transfer Glaucoma Daily practice Internet survey |
| title | Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members |
| title_full | Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members |
| title_fullStr | Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members |
| title_full_unstemmed | Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members |
| title_short | Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members |
| title_sort | survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among japan glaucoma society board members |
| topic | Visual field Electronic data transfer Glaucoma Daily practice Internet survey |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02800-z |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT masakitanito surveyonelectronicvisualfielddatatransferpracticesamongjapanglaucomasocietyboardmembers AT takeshihara surveyonelectronicvisualfielddatatransferpracticesamongjapanglaucomasocietyboardmembers AT makotoaihara surveyonelectronicvisualfielddatatransferpracticesamongjapanglaucomasocietyboardmembers |