PURPOSE: To extend access to diabetic eye care and characterize the extent of diabetic retinopathy {DR) and other ocular findings using the Joslin Vision Network (JVN). DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. METHODS: Outpatients at the Togus VA Medical Center with diabetes mellitus, impaired fasting glucose, or impaired glucose tolerance underwent JVN protocol imaging. Images were transmitted to the Joslin Diabetes Center for grading and recommended treatment plan. RESULTS: The study included 1,219 patients (2,437 eyes); 1,536 eyes (63.0%) had no (DR), 389 (16.0%) had mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR), 105 (4.3%) moderate NPDR, 35 (1.4%) severe NPDR, 20 (0.8%) very severe NPDR, and 21 (0.9%) had proliferative DR (PDR). Regarding diabetic macular edema (DME), 1,907 eyes (78.3%) had no DME, 34 (1.4%) had early DME, and 16 (0.7%) had clinically significant macular edema (CSME). Of all patients, 354 (29.0%) had either no DR or mild NPDR in both eyes, no evidence of DME, and no significant nondiabetic findings; 679 (55.7%) had no DR in either eye, and 229 (18.8%) had mild NPDR in the more severe eye. Of the 908 patients (74.5%) with either no DR or mild NPDR in the more severe eye, 533 (58.7%) had at least one nondiabetic ocular finding necessitating referral. Finally, 320 eyes (13.1%) were ungradable for both DR and DME and 160 (6.6%) were ungradable for DME alone. CONCLUSION: In a non-ophthalmic setting, JVN identifies the severity of DR and nondiabetic ocular conditions, permitting appropriate triage for eye care.
PURPOSE: To extend access to diabetic eye care and characterize the extent of diabetic retinopathy {DR) and other ocular findings using the Joslin Vision Network (JVN). DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. METHODS: Outpatients at the Togus VA Medical Center with diabetes mellitus, impaired fasting glucose, or impaired glucose tolerance underwent JVN protocol imaging. Images were transmitted to the Joslin Diabetes Center for grading and recommended treatment plan. RESULTS: The study included 1,219 patients (2,437 eyes); 1,536 eyes (63.0%) had no (DR), 389 (16.0%) had mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR), 105 (4.3%) moderate NPDR, 35 (1.4%) severe NPDR, 20 (0.8%) very severe NPDR, and 21 (0.9%) had proliferative DR (PDR). Regarding diabetic macular edema (DME), 1,907 eyes (78.3%) had no DME, 34 (1.4%) had early DME, and 16 (0.7%) had clinically significant macular edema (CSME). Of all patients, 354 (29.0%) had either no DR or mild NPDR in both eyes, no evidence of DME, and no significant nondiabetic findings; 679 (55.7%) had no DR in either eye, and 229 (18.8%) had mild NPDR in the more severe eye. Of the 908 patients (74.5%) with either no DR or mild NPDR in the more severe eye, 533 (58.7%) had at least one nondiabetic ocular finding necessitating referral. Finally, 320 eyes (13.1%) were ungradable for both DR and DME and 160 (6.6%) were ungradable for DME alone. CONCLUSION: In a non-ophthalmic setting, JVN identifies the severity of DR and nondiabetic ocular conditions, permitting appropriate triage for eye care.
Authors: Cynthia Owsley; Gerald McGwin; David J Lee; Byron L Lam; David S Friedman; Emily W Gower; Julia A Haller; Lisa A Hark; Jinan Saaddine Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Emily Cole; Nita G Valikodath; April Maa; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang; Aaron Y Lee; Daniel C Tu; Thomas S Hwang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Srinivas R Sadda; Ou Tan; Alexander C Walsh; Joel S Schuman; Rohit Varma; David Huang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 12.079