Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2022; 83(04): 343-349
DOI: 10.1055/a-1680-1429
Original Article

The Unified Visual Function Scale Assessments Show Inter- and Intraobserver Agreement and Correlate with Patient Quality of Life in Skull Base Parasellar Tumors

Vincent Ye 
1   Division of Neurosurgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Serge Makarenko 
2   Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
,
Peter A. Gooderham
2   Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
,
Ryojo Akagami
2   Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The authors have previously described the Unified Visual Function Scale (UVFS). Here, we assessed intra- and interobserver reliability of the scale, and investigated correlations with patient quality of life (QoL).

Methods Eight healthcare practitioners independently applied the UVFS in 20 representative cases from our parasellar meningioma series. Scoring was compared with consensus grades assigned by lead authors. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Fleiss's κ, and Cohen's κ, respectively. Patient QoL was assessed Visual Function Questionnaire 25 (VFQ-25) or Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS), and correlated with UVFS grades for each eye.

Results The interobserver ICC was 0.734 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.652–0.811), with Fleiss's κ of 0.758, 0.691, and 0.899 for grades A, B, and C, respectively. The intraobserver ICC was 0.758 (95% CI: 0.638–0.872), and Fleiss's κ was 0.604, 0.268, and 0.910 for grades A, B, and C respectively. The Cohen's κ for agreement between UVFS category grades and consensus grades was 0.816 (95 CI: 0.698–0.934). Survey response rate was 51% (27/53). The UVFS demonstrated strong correlation with VFQ-25 subdivisions general vision (r = 0.7712), near activities (r = 0.7262), peripheral vision (r = 0.6722), and driving (r = 0.6608), and also demonstrated strong correlation with the overall ADVS score (r = 0.5902).

Conclusion This study shows that the UVFS is valid within a small subset of observers, and accurately reflects patient QoL. It is robust and practical, which make it suitable for broad implementation.

Keywords

visual - field - acuity - scale - validation

Note

Portions of this work were presented in poster form and as proceedings at the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting, International Conference on Skull Base Surgery, North American Skull Base Society, Coronado, United States of America, February 24, 2018.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 16 July 2021

Accepted: 23 October 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
27 October 2021

Article published online:
14 December 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Ciric I, Rosenblatt S. Suprasellar meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2001; 49 (06) 1372-1377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fahlbusch R, Schott W. Pterional surgery of meningiomas of the tuberculum sellae and planum sphenoidale: surgical results with special consideration of ophthalmological and endocrinological outcomes. J Neurosurg 2002; 96 (02) 235-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Stefko ST, Snyderman C, Fernandez-Miranda J. et al. Visual outcomes after endoscopic endonasal approach for craniopharyngioma: the Pittsburgh experience. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2016; 77 (04) 326-332
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nickels S, Schuster AK, Singer S. et al. The National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) - reference data from the German population-based Gutenberg Health Study (GHS). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017; 15 (01) 156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Makarenko S, Ye V, Gooderham PA, Akagami R. A novel scale for describing visual outcomes in patients following resection of lesions affecting the optic apparatus: the Unified Visual Function Scale. J Neurosurg 2018; 129 (06) 1438-1445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rosenstein J, Symon L. Surgical management of suprasellar meningioma. Part 2: Prognosis for visual function following craniotomy. J Neurosurg 1984; 61 (04) 642-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jaeger W, Thomann H. [German Ophthalmological Association. Recommendations for evaluation of reduced earning capacity caused by damage to vision. September 1981]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1982; 180 (03) 242-244
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD. National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire Field Test Investigators. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119 (07) 1050-1058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM. et al. Development of the ‘Activities of Daily Vision Scale’. A measure of visual functional status. Med Care 1992; 30 (12) 1111-1126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Makarenko S, Carreras EM, Akagami R. Craniotomy for perisellar meningiomas: comparison of simple (appropriate for endoscopic approach) versus complex anatomy and surgical outcomes. J Neurosurg 2017; 126 (04) 1191-1200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pesudovs K, Gothwal VK, Wright T, Lamoureux EL. Remediating serious flaws in the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36 (05) 718-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Shrout PE. Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat Methods Med Res 1998; 7 (03) 301-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971; 76 (05) 378-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Pearson's Correlation Coefficient. In: Kirch W. ed. Encyclopedia of Public Health. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2008: 1090-1091
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Gardner G, Robertson JH. Hearing preservation in unilateral acoustic neuroma surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1988; 97 (01) 55-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Monsell EM. New and revised reporting guidelines from the Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Inc. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995; 113 (03) 176-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 2005; 85 (03) 257-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Globe D, Varma R, Azen SP, Paz S, Yu E, Preston-Martin S. Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Psychometric performance of the NEI VFQ-25 in visually normal Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44 (04) 1470-1478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Blumberg DM, De Moraes CG, Prager AJ. et al. Association between undetected 10-2 visual field damage and vision-related quality of life in patients with glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017; 135 (07) 742-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rulli E, Quaranta L, Riva I. et al; Italian Study Group on QoL in Glaucoma. Visual field loss and vision-related quality of life in the Italian Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Study. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar