- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members
BMC Ophthalmology volumeΒ 23, ArticleΒ number:Β 45 (2023)
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 (nβ=β26, 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 inβ<β25% 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.
Introduction
Visual field (VF) testing is critical for characterizing and monitoring visual loss in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. For monitoring glaucomatous progression using a specialized software such as Forum (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) or BeeFiles (BeeLine, Tokyo, Japan), trend- and/or event-based analyses were performed on repeated- and long duration-measured standard automated perimetry testing [1]. General practitioners/ophthalmologists follow many patients with a low-risk glaucoma, and patients requiring further management are sometimes transferred to glaucoma specialists [2]. Performing glaucoma progression analysis requires original VF data rather than printouts or image files (e.g., jpeg and pdf). Therefore, if the referral do not accompany the original electronic VF data, referred ophthalmologists/patients must start collecting VF data for further progression analysis; this scenario is an obvious loss for patients. The same situation also occurs when patients visit other physicians/hospitals because they have relocated. Since it is unclear to what extent of VF data transfer is performed, we surveyed glaucoma specialists who belong to the Japan Glaucoma Society (JGS).
Subjects and methods
An internet survey of daily practice patterns regarding electronic VF data transfer at the time of glaucoma referrals (referring/referred) was sent to the 50 JGS board members. The institutional review board (IRB) of Shimane University Hospital determined that conducting the survey did not require IRB review/approval because it did not contain patient data. The invitation was e-mailed on August 22, 2022, and the questionnaire was conducted on a web-based survey system (i.e., Google Forms). The 50 members responded to the questionnaire by September 10, 2022 (response rate, 100%) (Table 1). Q1-Q11 and the original responses in English and Japanese are shown in Supplementary File 1.
Results
The respondents included 33 university hospital ophthalmologists (66%) (Q1), and those scattered throughout Japan (Q2). All respondents used Humphrey Visual Filed Analyzer (HFA) (Carl-Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) (Q3) and 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 (nβ=β26, 65%) and/or own (25, 63%) institutes, followed by the time and effort required (13, 33%) (Q6).
All 40 inactive respondents responded that electronic data transfer is ideal (Q7). All 10 active respondents transferred data using USB flash memory; four (40%) also transferred data by an electronic medical record network/cloud system, and three (30%) by floppy disc to support old equipment (Q8).
Based on the experience 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%, two (20%) reported 25-50%, and one reported (10%)ββ₯β75% (Q9). When the referral letters did not accompany the electronic VF data, four (40%) reported that they further requested the data transfer inβ<β25% of cases, four (40%) reported from 25-50%, and two (20%) reportedββ₯β75% (Q10). When the 10 active respondents were requested to transfer data, four (40%) had never rejected the request, while six (60%) had experienced rejection due to "different perimetry equipmentβ, four (40%) reported that "we don't do data transfersβ, four (40%) reported "we don't know how to transfer dataβ, and two (20%) reported other reasons (Q11).
Discussion
The survey showed that all JGS board members used HFA and at least one type of progression analyses software in daily practice. However, 80% of the members were not actively transferring data at the time of their patientsβ transfers, although all respondents thought that data transfer was preferrable.
The main reasons for inactive data transfer were the lack of a system (including absence of the rule and lack of human resources) for sending and receiving data. The free comments from the respondents indicated that, in many hospitals, the use of USB flash memory brought from the outside was prohibited; thus, a data protection policy by the hospital also seemed to be a barrier to VF data transfer. Lack of knowledge and experience by referring physicians/institutes also was a disincentive to data transfer; thus, education about the importance and specific methods of data transfer also seemed to be required. Transport of the data by the patients themselves in data-protected storage media (e.g., integrated circuit card) might solve the transfer problems; hopefully such systems will be available in the future. Building a cloud system might be another direction for the improvement. It is important to note that these future improvements must be accompanied by development of systems for the protection of personal information during personal information exchange, establishing the rules in the facility and inter-facilities, and solving the problems of expenses and appropriate compensation.
The survey was solely conducted among glaucoma specialists in Japan, thus rate of electronic VF data transfer among general ophthalmologists might be even lower than the reported results. Not limited to glaucoma, conditions related to clinical examination and treatment depend on the various social factors including medical laws, health insurance systems, and economic conditions of each region and country in the world. Thus, discussion from a global perspective is also necessary. Coupled with the development of new progression analysis methods [3], VF testing will continue to be important in diagnosing and managing glaucoma [4]. The results provide basic data for future discussions to promote VF data transfer.
Availability of data and materials
All the relevant data are contained in this manuscript. Original survey results conducted in Japanese are available as Supplementary File 1.
References
Wu Z, Medeiros FA. Recent developments in visual field testing for glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018;29(2):141β6.
Mushtaq Y, Panchasara B, Nassehzadehtabriz N, Lim HK, Mushtaq M, Kean J, Farrell S, Bourne RRA, Shahid H, Khatib TZ, et al. Evaluating multidisciplinary glaucoma care: visual field progression and loss of sight year analysis in the community vs hospital setting. Eye (Lond). 2022;36(3):555β63.
Asaoka R, Murata H, Asano S, Matsuura M, Fujino Y, Miki A, Tanito M, Mizoue S, Mori K, Suzuki K, et al. The usefulness of the deep learning method of variational autoencoder to reduce measurement noise in glaucomatous visual fields. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):7893.
Camp AS, Weinreb RN. Will perimetry be performed to monitor glaucoma in 2025? Ophthalmology. 2017;124(12s):S71-s75.
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MT and TH designed the study, collected the data, and aggregated the data. MT, TH, and MA conducted the survey. MT drafted the manuscript, and TH and MA revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The institutional review board (IRB) of Shimane University Hospital waived off the approval for the study. because it did not contain patient data, and outside of the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects in Japan. The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. At the beginning of the questionnaire respondents were informed that the results of their answers would be published in scientific papers and/or meetings, and they were asked to respond only if they agreed to do so. Therefore, obtained the informed consent from all subjects (respondents)..
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisherβs Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Tanito, M., Hara, T. & Aihara, M. Survey on electronic visual field data transfer practices among Japan Glaucoma Society board members. BMC Ophthalmol 23, 45 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02800-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02800-z