AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Our study aimed to validate a model to determine a personalised screening frequency for diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: A model calculating a personalised screening interval for monitoring retinopathy based on patients' risk profile was validated using the data of 3,319 type 2 diabetic patients in the Diabetes Care System West-Friesland, the Netherlands. Two-field fundus photographs were graded according to the EURODIAB coding system. Sight-threatening retinopathy (STR) was considered to be grades 3-5. Validity of the model was assessed using calibration and discrimination measures. We compared model-based time of screening with time of STR diagnosis and calculated the differences in the number of fundus photographs using the model compared with those in annual or biennial screening. RESULTS: During a mean of 53 months of follow-up, 76 patients (2.3%) developed STR. Using the model, the mean screening interval was 31 months, leading to a reduced screening frequency of 61% compared with annual screening and 23% compared with biennial screening. STR incidence occurred after a mean of 26 months after the model-based time of screening in 67 patients (88.2%). In nine patients (11.8%), STR had developed before the model-based time of screening. The discriminatory ability of the model was good (C-statistic 0.83; 95% CI 0.74, 0.92). Calibration showed that the model overestimated STR risk. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: A large reduction in retinopathy screening was achieved using the model in this population of patients with a very low incidence of retinopathy. Considering the number of potentially missed cases of STR, there is room for improvement in the model. Use of the model for personalised screening may eventually help to reduce healthcare use and costs of diabetes care.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Our study aimed to validate a model to determine a personalised screening frequency for diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: A model calculating a personalised screening interval for monitoring retinopathy based on patients' risk profile was validated using the data of 3,319 type 2 diabeticpatients in the Diabetes Care System West-Friesland, the Netherlands. Two-field fundus photographs were graded according to the EURODIAB coding system. Sight-threatening retinopathy (STR) was considered to be grades 3-5. Validity of the model was assessed using calibration and discrimination measures. We compared model-based time of screening with time of STR diagnosis and calculated the differences in the number of fundus photographs using the model compared with those in annual or biennial screening. RESULTS: During a mean of 53 months of follow-up, 76 patients (2.3%) developed STR. Using the model, the mean screening interval was 31 months, leading to a reduced screening frequency of 61% compared with annual screening and 23% compared with biennial screening. STR incidence occurred after a mean of 26 months after the model-based time of screening in 67 patients (88.2%). In nine patients (11.8%), STR had developed before the model-based time of screening. The discriminatory ability of the model was good (C-statistic 0.83; 95% CI 0.74, 0.92). Calibration showed that the model overestimated STR risk. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: A large reduction in retinopathy screening was achieved using the model in this population of patients with a very low incidence of retinopathy. Considering the number of potentially missed cases of STR, there is room for improvement in the model. Use of the model for personalised screening may eventually help to reduce healthcare use and costs of diabetes care.
Authors: Laura M C Welschen; Patricia van Oppen; Jacqueline M Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Wim A B Stalman; Giel Nijpels Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2007-05-08 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: David M Nathan; Ionut Bebu; Dean Hainsworth; Ronald Klein; William Tamborlane; Gayle Lorenzi; Rose Gubitosi-Klug; John M Lachin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Katharina A Ponto; Jochem Koenig; Tunde Peto; Julia Lamparter; Philipp Raum; Philipp S Wild; Karl J Lackner; Norbert Pfeiffer; Alireza Mirshahi Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Amber Awa van der Heijden; Simone P Rauh; Jacqueline M Dekker; Joline W Beulens; Petra Elders; Leen M 't Hart; Femke Rutters; Nienke van Leeuwen; Giel Nijpels Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Antonio Eleuteri; Anthony C Fisher; Deborah M Broadbent; Marta García-Fiñana; Christopher P Cheyne; Amu Wang; Irene M Stratton; Mark Gabbay; Daniel Seddon; Simon P Harding Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Amber A van der Heijden; Giel Nijpels; Fariza Badloe; Heidi L Lovejoy; Linda M Peelen; Talitha L Feenstra; Karel G M Moons; Roderick C Slieker; Ron M C Herings; Petra J M Elders; Joline W Beulens Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Marta García-Fiñana; David M Hughes; Christopher P Cheyne; Deborah M Broadbent; Amu Wang; Arnošt Komárek; Irene M Stratton; Mehrdad Mobayen-Rahni; Ayesh Alshukri; Jiten P Vora; Simon P Harding Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 6.577