2019Optometry and Vision ScienceOpen access

Anterior Chamber Angle Evaluation Using Gonioscopy: Consistency and Agreement between Optometrists and Ophthalmologists

Jack Phu, Henrietta Wang, Sieu K. Khuu, Barbara Zangerl, Michael Hennessy, Katherine Masselos, Michael Kalloniatis

Open full text 26 citations

Abstract

SIGNIFICANCE: In our intermediate-tier glaucoma care clinic, we demonstrate fair to moderate agreement in gonioscopy examination between optometrists and ophthalmologists, but excellent agreement when considering open versus closed angles. We highlight the need for increased consistency in the evaluation and recording of angle status using gonioscopy. PURPOSE: The consistency of gonioscopy results obtained by different clinicians is not known but is important in moving toward practice modalities such as telemedicine and collaborative care clinics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the description and concordance of gonioscopy results among different practitioners. METHODS: The medical records of 101 patients seen within a collaborative care glaucoma clinic who had undergone gonioscopic assessment by two clinicians (one optometrist and either one general ophthalmologist [n = 50] or one glaucoma specialist [n = 51]) were reviewed. The gonioscopy records were evaluated for their descriptions of deepest structure seen, trabecular pigmentation, iris configuration, and other features. These were compared between clinicians (optometrist vs. ophthalmologist) and against the final diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 51.9 and 59.8% of angles were graded identically in terms of deepest visible structure when comparing between optometrist versus general ophthalmologist and optometrist versus glaucoma specialist, respectively. The concordance increased when considering ±1 of the grade (67.4 and 78.5%, respectively), and agreement with the final diagnosis was high (>90%). Variations in angle grading other than naming structures were observed (2.0, 30, and 3.9% for optometrist, general ophthalmologist, and glaucoma specialist, respectively). Most of the time, trabecular pigmentation or iris configuration was not described. CONCLUSIONS: Fair to moderate concordance in gonioscopy was achieved between optometrists and ophthalmologists in a collaborative care clinic in which there is consistent feedback and clinical review. To move toward unified medical records and a telemedicine model, improved consistency of record keeping and angle description is required.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

SIGNIFICANCE: In our intermediate-tier glaucoma care clinic, we demonstrate fair to moderate agreement in gonioscopy examination between optometrists and ophthalmologists, but excellent agreement when considering open versus closed angles. We highlight the need for increased consistency in the evaluation and recording of angle status using gonioscopy. PURPOSE: The consistency of gonioscopy results obtained by different clinicians is not known but is important in moving toward practice modalities such as telemedicine and collaborative care clinics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the description and concordance of gonioscopy results among different practitioners. METHODS: The medical records of 101 patients seen within a collaborative care glaucoma clinic who had undergone gonioscopic assessment by two clinicians (one optometrist and either one general ophthalmologist [n = 50] or one glaucoma specialist [n = 51]) were reviewed. The gonioscopy records were evaluated for their descriptions of deepest structure seen, trabecular pigmentation, iris configuration, and other features. These were compared between clinicians (optometrist vs. ophthalmologist) and against the final diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 51.9 and 59.8% of angles were graded identically in terms of deepest visible structure when comparing between optometrist versus general ophthalmologist and optometrist versus glaucoma specialist, respectively. The concordance increased when considering ±1 of the grade (67.4 and 78.5%, respectively), and agreement with the final diagnosis was high (>90%). Variations in angle grading other than naming structures were observed (2.0, 30, and 3.9% for optometrist, general ophthalmologist, and glaucoma specialist, respectively). Most of the time, trabecular pigmentation or iris configuration was not described. CONCLUSIONS: Fair to moderate concordance in gonioscopy was achieved between optometrists and ophthalmologists in a collaborative care clinic in which there is consistent feedback and clinical review. To move toward unified medical records and a telemedicine model, improved consistency of record keeping and angle description is required.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 26 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

SIGNIFICANCE: In our intermediate-tier glaucoma care clinic, we demonstrate fair to moderate agreement in gonioscopy examination between optometrists and ophthalmologists, but excellent agreement when considering open versus closed angles. We highlight the need for increased consistency in the evaluation and recording of angle status using gonioscopy. PURPOSE: The consistency of gonioscopy results obtained by different clinicians is not known but is important in moving toward practice modalities such as telemedicine and collaborative care clinics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the description and concordance of gonioscopy results among different practitioners. METHODS: The medical records of 101 patients seen within a collaborative care glaucoma clinic who had undergone gonioscopic assessment by two clinicians (one optometrist and either one general ophthalmologist [n = 50] or one glaucoma specialist [n = 51]) were reviewed. The gonioscopy records were evaluated for their descriptions of deepest structure seen, trabecular pigmentation, iris configuration, and other features. These were compared between clinicians (optometrist vs. ophthalmologist) and against the final diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 51.9 and 59.8% of angles were graded identically in terms of deepest visible structure when comparing between optometrist versus general ophthalmologist and optometrist versus glaucoma specialist, respectively. The concordance increased when considering ±1 of the grade (67.4 and 78.5%, respectively), and agreement with the final diagnosis was high (>90%). Variations in angle grading other than naming structures were observed (2.0, 30, and 3.9% for optometrist, general ophthalmologist, and glaucoma specialist, respectively). Most of the time, trabecular pigmentation or iris configuration was not described. CONCLUSIONS: Fair to moderate concordance in gonioscopy was achieved between optometrists and ophthalmologists in a collaborative care clinic in which there is consistent feedback and clinical review. To move toward unified medical records and a telemedicine model, improved consistency of record keeping and angle description is required.

Key concepts: Gonioscopy, Optometry, Anterior chamber angle, Ophthalmology, Consistency (knowledge bases), Medicine, Glaucoma, Computer science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Anterior Chamber Angle Evaluation Using Gonioscopy: Consistency and Agreement between Optometrists and Ophthalmologists — Research Paper | ScholarLens