 |
|
Quality of Life With Visual Acuity Loss From Diabetic Retinopathy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:481-484.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objective To compare the quality of life in patients with visual acuity loss occurring
secondary to diabetic retinopathy with visual acuity loss occurring secondary
to age-related macular degeneration (ARMD).
Methods Consecutive patients with diabetic retinopathy and ARMD were evaluated
using the time trade-off method of utility value analysis. Both groups were
stratified according to the degree of visual acuity loss in the better-seeing
eye (group 1: 20/20-20/25, group 2: 20/30-20/40, group 3: 20/50-20/100, group
4:  20/200). Utility values obtained from the patients, once stratified
for visual acuity group, were compared with use of the t test and the Mann-Whitney U test. In addition,
a 2-way analysis of variance was performed to control for potential confounding
variables.
Results No difference was found between the utility value means of the diabetic
retinopathy (n = 333) and ARMD (n = 246) subgroups stratified according to
visual acuity levels: group 1, P = .54; group 2, P = .96; group 3, P = .09; and
group 4, P = .32. A 2-way analysis of variance demonstrated
that, among the variables of ocular disease, sex, age, and visual acuity in
the better-seeing eye, only visual acuity was significantly associated with
utility values (P = .003).
Conclusions At similar levels of visual acuity loss, that associated with diabetic
retinopathy causes a similar reduction in quality of life to that associated
with ARMD. This information has important implications for use in cost-utility
analyses of ophthalmic interventions.
INTRODUCTION
UTILITY ANALYSIS allows quantification of the quality of life associated
with a health state.1-5
By convention, a utility value of 1.0 is associated with perfect health, while
a utility value of 0.0 is associated with death. The closer the utility value
is to 1.0, the better the quality of life associated with a health state and
the closer the value is to 0.0, the poorer the quality of life associated
with a health state.
Utility values associated with ocular diseases have been shown to correlate
best with the visual acuity in the better-seeing eye.6-11
As the visual acuity in the better-seeing eye decreases, the visual utility
decreases concomitantly. It has been suggested that utility values are related
more to the level of visual acuity loss than to the underlying cause of visual
acuity loss.6 Nevertheless, the largest study
that undertook this analysis was relatively underpowered, with slightly more
than 100 subjects in each of the diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular
degeneration (ARMD) groups.6 For this reason,
we undertook a study to evaluate whether the visual acuity loss occurring
secondary to diabetic retinopathy had the same adverse effect on quality of
life as the visual acuity loss associated with ARMD.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
PATIENTS
Included in the study were consecutive patients recruited from 2 ophthalmic
practices, one predominantly vitreoretinal, and the second a comprehensive
ophthalmologic practice. Patients were considered eligible for the study if
they had a diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy or ARMD. The minimum criterion
for entrance in the diabetic retinopathy group was a history of diabetes mellitus
associated with retinal hemorrhages and/or microaneurysms. The lower threshold
criteria for the presence of ARMD included macular drusen in association with
a central macular retinal pigment epithelial disturbance. Both dry and exudative
forms of ARMD were included. Only patients who had visual acuity loss occurring
primarily secondary to diabetic retinopathy or ARMD were included. The exact
criteria for the cause of primary visual acuity loss have been previously
reported.9-10
Exclusion criteria included the presence of Alzheimer disease or other
forms of dementia that were judged to negate the possibility of giving rational
answers, visual acuity loss occurring secondary to multiple causes (for example,
diabetic retinopathy and cataract), and the inability or unwillingness to
answer study questions once they were posed.
All patients underwent a complete ophthalmologic examination, including
measurement of best-corrected visual acuity in both eyes, anterior segment
examination, and dilated funduscopy. If the visual acuity could be further
improved with a pinhole, the pinhole vision was chosen as the best-corrected
visual acuity. The pinhole visual acuity was believed to represent the vision
that could be obtained by squinting, thus simulating the visual potential
in a real-life setting.6-11
Following the clinical examination and agreement to participate in the
study, each patient was asked a series of time tradeoff utility analysis questions
that have been previously reported.6-11
The study questions were administered by one of two of us (either M.M.B. or
G.C.B.) using the same written protocol.
Initially, each person was asked how long he or she expected to live.
In patients with abnormal visual acuity (20/30 in at least 1 eye), each
was asked how much of the remaining time of life he or she would be willing
to trade in return for a treatment that would return permanent good vision
to each eye. In patients with good bilateral visual acuity(20/20-20/25), the
question was slightly modified to ask how much of the remaining time of life
he or she would trade in return for a guarantee of retaining good vision in
each eye for the remaining years. The time trade-off utility value was calculated
by the following formula: 1.0 - (number of years traded for good vision)/(number
of years of expected remaining life). For example, if a person expected to
live 10 additional years and would trade 3 of them in return for good vision,
the resultant utility value would be 0.7 (1.0–[3/10]).
The subgroups in each of the diabetic retinopathy and ARMD groups were
subdivided into 4 visual stratifications based on the visual acuity in the
better-seeing eye. The visual acuity strata were defined as follows: group
1: 20/20-20/25 (good reading vision), group 2: 20/30 to 20/40 (legal driving
vision), group 3: 20/50 to 20/100 (moderate visual acuity loss), and group
4: less than or equal to 20/200 (legal blindness). The study was approved
by the institutional review board of Wills Eye Hospital (Philadelphia, Pa).
STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 10.1 (SPSS Corporation,
Chicago, Ill). An analysis of whether the parameters studied were parametric
or nonparametric was performed using the 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
A comparison of the means of the stratified visual acuity groups was performed
using the t test for independent samples and the
Mann-Whitney U test, the analog of the t test for independent samples that are nonparametric in distribution.
In addition, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to control
for the variables of sex and age. Categorical variables were studied using
a  2 analysis. Statistical significance was presumed to occur
at the P = .05 level.
A sample size power calculation was performed before the study was undertaken,
employing values from previous studies9-10
with SPSS Sample Power 2 (SPSS Corporation). With a 2-sided  of .05
and a power of 80%, a total of 60 patients per visually stratified subgroup
was necessary to demonstrate a 10% difference in mean utility values and a
total of 30 patients per subgroup was necessary to demonstrate a 15% difference.
Data are given as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.
RESULTS
STUDY GROUPS
Study questions were administered to a total of 617 patients: 354 with
diabetic retinopathy and 263 with ARMD. Five hundred ninety (95%) came from
the vitreoretinal practice and 27 (5%) from the comprehensive ophthalmology
practice. Among the 617 total patients, 38 (6.1%) were unable or unwilling
to completely answer the study questions. Twenty-one (5.9%) of the 354 patients
with diabetes were therefore excluded and 17 (6.4%) of the 263 with patients
ARMD were excluded. The remaining 579 patients included 333 (57%) with diabetic
retinopathy and 246 (43%) with ARMD.
The clinical parameters of each group are presented in Table 1. In the diabetic retinopathy group there were 187 women
and 146 men and in the ARMD group there were 163 women and 83 men (P = .02). Three hundred two white and 31 nonwhite patients composed
the diabetic retinopathy group, and 245 white and 1 nonwhite patients comprised
the ARMD group (P<.001). The average age of those
with diabetic retinopathy was 62.2 ± 11.8 years and of those with ARMD
was 73.2 ± 9.8 years. The median age in the diabetic retinopathy group
was 65 years and in the ARMD group was 74 years (P<.001).
The mean number of years of formal education after kindergarten in the diabetic
retinopathy group was 13.1 ± 2.7 and in the ARMD group was 12.9 ±
2.7 (P = .43). The median number of years of education
in each group was 12. The mean time of visual acuity loss to the level of
visual acuity at the time of examination was 2.5 ± 4.0 years in the
diabetic retinopathy group and 2.1 ± 2.2 years in the ARMD group (P = .13)
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Clinical Parameters of Patients With Diabetic Retinopathy
and Age-Related Macular Degeneration*
|
|
|
There were 10 people in the diabetic retinopathy group and 7 in the
ARMD group who had visual acuities between 20/20 and 20/25 OU. Excluding these
cases, the mean number of years of visual acuity loss to the visual acuity
level at the time of entrance into the study was 2.5 ± 4.1 years in
the diabetic retinopathy group and 2.1 ± 2.2 years in the ARMD group.
The difference between these means was not significant (P = .13).
UTILITY VALUES
The mean visual acuity in the better-seeing eye of patients in the diabetic
retinopathy group was approximately 20/40. The overall mean visual utility
value for the diabetic retinopathy group was 0.79 ± 0.20 (95% confidence
interval [CI], 0.77-0.81). The mean visual acuity in the better-seeing eye
of the ARMD group was approximately 20/45. The overall mean visual utility
value for the ARMD group was 0.74 ± 0.23 (95% CI, 0.71-0.77). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test for normality revealed that the distribution of the overall utility values
of both groups was nonparametric (P<.001); thus,
the Mann-Whitney rank sum U test was employed to
compare the 2 groups. There was a significant difference between the mean
utility values of the groups (P = .02).
When the utility values of the diabetic retinopathy and ARMD subgroups
were stratified according to the visual acuity in the better-seeing eye, however,
the Kolgmogorov-Smirnov test revealed a more normal distribution for each
of the subgroups (group 1, P = .37; group 2, P = .35, group 3, P = .20, group
4, P = .96). Since the distribution of utility values
among the subgroups seemed to be parametric while the overall utility values
were nonparametric, both the t test and Mann-Whitney
rank sum U test were used to analyze the subgroups.
The utility values for each of the subgroups stratified according to visual
acuity level in the better-seeing eye are presented in Table 2. No significant difference was noted between the mean utility
values in any of the visual acuity stratified subgroups using either the t test for independent samples or the Mann-Whitney rank
sum U test.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Comparison of Means of Visual Utility Values in Patients With
Diabetic Retinopathy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration*
|
|
|
A 2-way ANOVA incorporating the strata based on the visual acuity in
the better-seeing eye was also performed to examine the effects of sex, age,
and disease type (diabetic retinopathy or ARMD). The results of the ANOVA
are presented here and in Table 3.
Our model was associated with an F score of 19.27 (P<.001).
In this model, disease type (P = .21), age (P = .71), and sex (P = .06) make
nonsignificant contributions, while the contribution of visual acuity to utility
values is significant (P = .003)
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Two-Way Analysis of Variance Incorporating Disease Type, Visual
Acuity, Sex, and Age*
|
|
|
COMMENT
The study herein demonstrates that when patients are stratified according
to visual acuity in the better-seeing eye, the quality of life associated
with visual acuity loss from diabetic retinopathy is similar to that associated
with visual acuity loss occurring secondary to ARMD. In this situation, it
seems to be the degree of visual acuity loss rather than the underlying disease
causing the visual acuity loss that is primarily responsible for the reduction
in quality of life. This has been suggested previously,6
although the prior study undertaken did not have the power of our study. Conclusive
data concerning utility values for other ocular diseases, such as cataract,
are pending.
Ocular utility values have been demonstrated previously to correlate
most closely with visual acuity in the better-seeing eye.12
We therefore used the same criterion of visual acuity in the better-seeing
eye for analysis in this study. Visual acuity in the poorer-seeing eye correlates
with ocular utility values as well but not nearly to the extent of visual
acuity in the better-seeing eye.12 When the
results of averaging the visual acuities in each eye are correlated with ocular
utility values, the results seem to be the same as when the visual acuity
in the better-seeing eye is used (M.M.B and G.C.B., unpublished data, 2002).
Our diabetic retinopathy and ARMD groups were similar according to time
of visual acuity loss and level of education. The composition of age, sex,
and race, however, differed among the groups. While the dissimilarity of these
latter parameters is a potential weakness of the study, it has been previously
shown that utility values are independent of age and sex.5-6,9-10,12
In addition, once these variables were controlled for in the ANOVA, only visual
acuity was significantly associated with utility. The effect of race on utility
values is uncertain and was not incorporated into the ANOVA owing to low numbers
of patients in some of the cells. The differences in age, sex, and race in
our diabetic retinopathy and ARMD cohorts most likely reflect the older age
of those with ARMD compared with those with diabetic retinopathy,13-14 the longer life expectancy of women
in the United States compared with that of men,15
and the greater proportion of whites affected by ARMD compared with African
Americans.16
The similarity of visual utility values in patients with diabetic retinopathy
and ARMD facilitates their use in cost-utility analyses.17-18
With cost-utility analysis, the improvement in quality of life and/or length
of life conferred by an intervention can be amalgamated with the costs of
the intervention to arrive at the dollars expended for the patient-perceived
value gained. It should be noted that the utility values presented herein
were all derived from patient interviews. Although utility values can be obtained
from surrogate responders, they are often quite different from those obtained
from patients who actually have the disease.7
Ocular utility values seem to have good reproducibility on both a short-
and long-term basis.19-20 Utility
values differ from many other quality-of-life instruments21-26
in that they are a measure of patient preferences for a health state. Most
other quality-of-life instruments measure the function associated with a health
state rather than the preference or desirability of it. Both types of instruments
have valuable applications and are likely to be complementary.
The generic systemic quality-of-life instruments, such as the Short-Form
36 and the Sickness Impact Profile, have not been found to correlate as well
with visual function as ophthalmic measures, such as the Visual
Function 14.21-24
The Visual Functioning 1425 and the newer Visual
Function Questionnaire 2526 are designed to
apply to ophthalmic conditions and therefore are not generally applicable
to nonophthalmic conditions. While they can be applied very effectively to
ophthalmic interventions, ophthalmic interventions represent only a very small
percentage of the total spectrum of health care interventions.27
Additionally, the above-mentioned measures have not been applied in cost-effectiveness
analysis. Utility value analysis allows measurements across all specialties
in health care, but, more importantly, can be used for cost-effectiveness
analysis. This is deemed to be a critical factor in improving quality28 in an era in which the United States has been ranked
by the World Health Organization29 as No. 37
in the world in its use of a method that measures the efficacy of health care
resource expenditure.
In summary, we found that ocular utility values obtained from patients
with diabetic retinopathy and ARMD, when stratified for level of visual acuity
loss, seem to be similar. This finding strongly suggests that for these 2
diseases, the decrease in quality of life induced by visual acuity loss is
related more to the degree of central acuity loss than to the underlying cause
of visual acuity loss.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Submitted for publication May 22, 2001; final revision received October
23, 2001; accepted December 21, 2001.
This study of supported in part by the Retina Research and Development
Foundation, Philadelphia, Pa, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Ottawa,
Ontario, the Canadian Institute for Health Research, Ottawa, the E. A. Baker
Foundation, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Toronto, Ontario,
and the Premier's Excellence Awards, Ontario Ministry of Science, Energy and
Technology, Toronto.
Melissa M. Brown, MD, MN, MBA;
Gary C. Brown, MD, MBA;
Sanjay Sharma, MD, MSc, MBA;
Jennifer Landy, MD;
Jeff Bakal, MSc
From the Center for Evidence-Based Health Care Economics, Flourtown,
Pa (Drs M. M. Brown, G. C. Brown, Sharma, and Landy); the Cataract and Primary
Eye Care Service (Dr M. M. Brown) and the Retina Vascular Unit (Dr G. C. Brown),
Wills Eye Hospital, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pa; and the Cost-Effective
Ocular Health Policy Unit, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario (Dr Sharma
and Mr Bakal).
Corresponding author and reprints: Melissa M. Brown, MD, MN, MBA,
Center for Evidence-Based Health Care Economics, Suite 210, 1107 Bethlehem
Pike, Flourtown, PA 19031(e-mail: lissa1011{at}aol.com).
REFERENCES
1. Redelmeier DA, Detsky A. A clinician's guide to utility measurement. Prim Care. 1995;22:271-281.
ISI
| PUBMED
2. Drummond ME, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care
Programmes. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1999:143-204.
3. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S. Health care in the 21st century. Qual Manag Health Care. 2000;9:23-31.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
4. Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, Garrett S. Evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness. J Health Care Finance. 1999;26:14-23.
PUBMED
5. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Brown H, Gozum M, Denton P. Quality-of-life associated with diabetes mellitus in an adult population. J Diabetes Complications. 2000;14:18-24.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
6. Brown GC. Vision and quality of life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1999;97:473-512.
PUBMED
7. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S. Difference between ophthalmologist and patient perceptions of quality-of-life
associated with age-related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol. 2000;35:27-32.
8. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Brown H. Patient perceptions of bilateral visual loss. Int Ophthalmol. 2000;22:307-312.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
9. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Kistler J. Utility values associated with age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:47-51.
FREE FULL TEXT
10. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Shah G. Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:324-330.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Kistler J, Brown H. Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:327-331.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. Converting visual acuity to utilities. Can J Ophthalmol. 2000;35:267-272.
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Macular Photocoagulation Study group. Laser photocoagulation of subfoveal neovascular lesions in age-related
macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1220-1231.
FREE FULL TEXT
14. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research group. Focal photocoagulation treatment of diabetic macular edema. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;113:1144-1155.
ISI
15. Frank RN, Puklin JE, Stock C, Canter LA. Race, iris color, and age-related macular degeneration. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;98:109-115.
PUBMED
16. Anderson RN. United States Life Tables, 1997. Hyattsville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, National Vital
Statistics Reports; 1999:1-40.
17. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S. Incremental cost-effectiveness of laser therapy for subfoveal choroidal
neovascularization. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1374-1380.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
18. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of grid laser photocoagulation for the treatment
of diabetic macular edema. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2000;11:175-179.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
19. Hollands H, Lam M, Pater J, Albiani D, et al. Reliability of the time trade-off technique of utility assessment in
patients with retinal disease. Can J Ophthalmol. 2001;36:202-209.
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Beauchamp G, Hollands H. The reproducibility of ophthalmic utility values. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2001;99:199-203.
PUBMED
21. Mills RP. Correlation of quality of life with clinical symptoms and signs at
the time of glaucoma diagnosis. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1998;96:753-812.
PUBMED
22. Damiano AM, Steinberg EP, Cassard SD, et al. Comparison of generic versus disease-specific measures of functional
impairment in patients with cataract. Med Care. 1995;33(suppl):AS120-AS130.
23. Parrish RK. Visual impairment, visual functioning, and quality of life assessments
in patients with glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1996;94:919-1028.
PUBMED
24. Parrish RK, Gedde SJ, Scott IU, et al. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:1447-1455.
FREE FULL TEXT
25. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:630-638.
FREE FULL TEXT
26. National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25). Available at: http://www.nei.nih.gov. Accessed April 2,
2001.
27. American Medical Association. Current Procedural Terminology, CPT 2001. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 2001.
28. Brown MM, Brown GC. Will disruptive innovations cure health care? Harvard Business Review. 2001;79:151.
ISI
| PUBMED
29. World Health Organization Report 2000. Available at: http://www.who.org. Accessed May 5, 2001.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Archives of Ophthalmology Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(4):527-528.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Utility assessment among patients of primary angle closure/glaucoma in China: a preliminary study
Sun et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:871-874.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Value-Based Medicine, Comparative Effectiveness, and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Topical Cyclosporine for the Treatment of Dry Eye Syndrome
Brown et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:146-152.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Social Networks and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Chinese Older Adults With Vision Impairment
Wang et al.
J Aging Health 2008;20:804-823.
ABSTRACT
Diabetes Mellitus and Visual Impairment: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004
Zhang et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2008;126:1421-1427.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The effect of comorbidities upon ocular and systemic health-related quality of life
Real et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:770-774.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Health-Related Quality of Life and Utility in Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Sahel et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:945-951.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality of life and relative importance: a comparison of time trade-off and conjoint analysis methods in patients with age-related macular degeneration
Aspinall et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:766-772.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Eye Care in the United States: Do We Deliver to High-Risk People Who Can Benefit Most From It?
Zhang et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:411-418.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Assessing the Impact of Visual Acuity on Quality of Life in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes Using the Short Form-36
Clarke et al.
Diabetes Care 2006;29:1506-1511.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Impact of Age-Related Macular Degeneration on Health Status Utility Values
Espallargues et al.
IOVS 2005;46:4016-4023.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost effectiveness of foldable multifocal intraocular lenses compared to foldable monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery
Dolders et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:1163-1168.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost utility of photodynamic therapy for predominantly classic neovascular age related macular degeneration
Hopley et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:982-987.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Photodynamic Therapy With Verteporfin for Subfoveal Choroidal Neovascularization in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Results of an Effectiveness Study
Sharma et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:853-856.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost utility of screening and treatment for early age related macular degeneration with zinc and antioxidants
Hopley et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:450-454.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of Bilateral Visual Impairment on Health-Related Quality of Life: the Blue Mountains Eye Study
Chia et al.
IOVS 2004;45:71-76.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Effect of an Aerobic Exercise Training Program on Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes
Holton et al.
The Diabetes Educator 2003;29:837-846.
ABSTRACT
Economic Analysis in Eye Disease
Lee and Zhang
Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:115-116.
FULL TEXT
|
