PURPOSE: To determine whether patient self-report of prior laser treatment can be used as a reliable tool for assessing the presence of severe diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study on two groups of diabetic subjects. METHODS: One hundred patients with diabetes were recruited from the general eye and retina clinics at the University of Chicago Hospitals. The patients were asked, "Have you ever received laser treatment for your diabetic eye disease (DED)?" A chart review was then conducted noting if the patient had received either focal laser treatment for diabetic macular edema or panretinal photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Data from the Wisconsin Epidemiological Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (WESDR) were also analyzed. Participant responses to the question "Have you had laser photocoagulation treatment for your eyes?" were analyzed with documentation of photocoagulation scars determined by grading seven-standard field color fundus photographs. RESULTS: In the University of Chicago group, 96 of 100 (96%) of patients were accurate in reporting whether they had received previous laser treatment for DED (sensitivity 95.8%, specificity 96.1%, and positive predictive value 88.5%). In the WESDR analysis, 2,329 of 2,348 (99%) of participants were accurate in reporting whether they had prior laser treatment for DED (sensitivity 96.0%, specificity 99.5%, and positive predictive value 95.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The high sensitivity and specificity of our results validate the use of patient self-report as a useful tool in assessing past laser treatment for severe diabetic retinopathy. Patient self-report may be a useful surrogate to clinical examination or medical record review to determine the presence of severe diabetic retinopathy.
PURPOSE: To determine whether patient self-report of prior laser treatment can be used as a reliable tool for assessing the presence of severe diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study on two groups of diabetic subjects. METHODS: One hundred patients with diabetes were recruited from the general eye and retina clinics at the University of Chicago Hospitals. The patients were asked, "Have you ever received laser treatment for your diabetic eye disease (DED)?" A chart review was then conducted noting if the patient had received either focal laser treatment for diabetic macular edema or panretinal photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Data from the Wisconsin Epidemiological Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (WESDR) were also analyzed. Participant responses to the question "Have you had laser photocoagulation treatment for your eyes?" were analyzed with documentation of photocoagulation scars determined by grading seven-standard field color fundus photographs. RESULTS: In the University of Chicago group, 96 of 100 (96%) of patients were accurate in reporting whether they had received previous laser treatment for DED (sensitivity 95.8%, specificity 96.1%, and positive predictive value 88.5%). In the WESDR analysis, 2,329 of 2,348 (99%) of participants were accurate in reporting whether they had prior laser treatment for DED (sensitivity 96.0%, specificity 99.5%, and positive predictive value 95.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The high sensitivity and specificity of our results validate the use of patient self-report as a useful tool in assessing past laser treatment for severe diabetic retinopathy. Patient self-report may be a useful surrogate to clinical examination or medical record review to determine the presence of severe diabetic retinopathy.
Authors: A Keech; R J Simes; P Barter; J Best; R Scott; M R Taskinen; P Forder; A Pillai; T Davis; P Glasziou; P Drury; Y A Kesäniemi; D Sullivan; D Hunt; P Colman; M d'Emden; M Whiting; C Ehnholm; M Laakso Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: B E Klein; M D Davis; P Segal; J A Long; W A Harris; G A Haug; Y L Magli; S Syrjala Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 1984-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Petter Bjornstad; David M Maahs; Marian Rewers; Richard J Johnson; Janet K Snell-Bergeon Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Petter Bjornstad; David M Maahs; Christopher J Rivard; Laura Pyle; Marian Rewers; Richard J Johnson; Janet K Snell-Bergeon Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Michael A Grassi; Anna Tikhomirov; Sudha Ramalingam; Jennifer E Below; Nancy J Cox; Dan L Nicolae Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2011-03-26 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Kieren J Mather; Ionut Bebu; Chelsea Baker; Robert M Cohen; Jill P Crandall; Cyrus DeSouza; Jennifer B Green; M Sue Kirkman; Heidi Krause-Steinrauf; Mary Larkin; Jeremy Pettus; Elizabeth R Seaquist; Elsayed Z Soliman; Emily B Schroeder; Deborah J Wexler; Rodica Pop-Busui Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Petter Bjornstad; David M Maahs; Lindsey M Duca; Laura Pyle; Marian Rewers; Richard J Johnson; Janet K Snell-Bergeon Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Michael A Grassi; Wanjie Sun; Sapna Gangaputra; Patricia A Cleary; Larry Hubbard; John M Lachin; Xiaoyu Gao; Szilárd Kiss; Andrew J Barkmeier; Arghavan Almony; Matthew Davis; Ronald Klein; Ronald P Danis Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Aila J Ahola; Markku Saraheimo; Carol Forsblom; Kustaa Hietala; Per-Henrik Groop Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Janne P Kytö; Valma Harjutsalo; Carol Forsblom; Kustaa Hietala; Paula A Summanen; Per-Henrik Groop Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anna Syreeni; Assam El-Osta; Carol Forsblom; Niina Sandholm; Maikki Parkkonen; Lise Tarnow; Hans-Henrik Parving; Amy J McKnight; Alexander P Maxwell; Mark E Cooper; Per-Henrik Groop Journal: Diabetes Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 9.461