AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of a non-mydriatic digital camera (45 degrees -30 degrees photographs) compared with the reference method for screening diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: Type 1 and 2 diabetic patients (n = 773; 1546 eyes) underwent screening for diabetic retinopathy in a prospective observational study. Hospital-based non-mydriatic digital retinal imaging by a consultant specialist in retinal diseases was compared with slit-lamp biomicroscopy and indirect ophthalmoscopy through dilated pupils, as a gold standard, previously performed in a community health centre by another consultant specialist in retinal diseases. The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of screening methods and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy. RESULTS: The prevalence of any form of diabetic retinopathy was 42.4% (n = 328); the prevalence of sight-threatening including macular oedema and proliferative retinopathy was 9.6% (n = 74). Sensitivity of detection of any diabetic retinopathy by digital imaging was 92% (95% confidence interval 90, 94). Specificity of detection of any diabetic retinopathy was 96% (95, 98). The predictive value of the negative tests was 94% and of a positive test 95%. For sight-threatening retinopathy digital imaging had a sensitivity of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: A high sensitivity and specificity are essential for an effective screening programme. These results confirm digital retinal imaging with a non-mydriatic camera as an effective option in community-based screening programmes for diabetic retinopathy.
AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of a non-mydriatic digital camera (45 degrees -30 degrees photographs) compared with the reference method for screening diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: Type 1 and 2 diabeticpatients (n = 773; 1546 eyes) underwent screening for diabetic retinopathy in a prospective observational study. Hospital-based non-mydriatic digital retinal imaging by a consultant specialist in retinal diseases was compared with slit-lamp biomicroscopy and indirect ophthalmoscopy through dilated pupils, as a gold standard, previously performed in a community health centre by another consultant specialist in retinal diseases. The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of screening methods and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy. RESULTS: The prevalence of any form of diabetic retinopathy was 42.4% (n = 328); the prevalence of sight-threatening including macular oedema and proliferative retinopathy was 9.6% (n = 74). Sensitivity of detection of any diabetic retinopathy by digital imaging was 92% (95% confidence interval 90, 94). Specificity of detection of any diabetic retinopathy was 96% (95, 98). The predictive value of the negative tests was 94% and of a positive test 95%. For sight-threatening retinopathy digital imaging had a sensitivity of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: A high sensitivity and specificity are essential for an effective screening programme. These results confirm digital retinal imaging with a non-mydriatic camera as an effective option in community-based screening programmes for diabetic retinopathy.
Authors: F Schütt; T Bruckner; K Schäfer; D Lehnhoff; G Rudofsky; C Kasperk; P Nawroth; G U Auffarth Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: N Minuto; V Emmanuele; M Vannati; C Russo; C Rebora; S Panarello; A Pistorio; R Lorini; G d'Annunzio Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2011-10-06 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Marcus Kernt; Indrawati Hadi; Florian Pinter; Florian Seidensticker; Christoph Hirneiss; Christos Haritoglou; Anselm Kampik; Michael W Ulbig; Aljoscha S Neubauer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Antonio Rodríguez-Poncelas; Xavier Mundet-Tudurí; Sonia Miravet-Jiménez; Aina Casellas; Joan F Barrot-De la Puente; Josep Franch-Nadal; Gabriel Coll-de Tuero Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 3.240