April Y Maa1,2, Shivangi Patel1, Joel E Chasan2, William Delaune3, Mary G Lynch1,2. 1. 1 Ophthalmology Division, Atlanta VA Medical Center , Decatur, Georgia . 2. 2 Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University School of Medicine , Atlanta, Georgia . 3. 3 Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Atlanta VA Medical Center , Decatur, Georgia .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetic teleretinal screening programs have been utilized successfully across the world to detect diabetic retinopathy (DR) and are well validated. Less information, however, exists on the ability of teleretinal imaging to detect nondiabetic ocular pathology. INTRODUCTION: This study performed a retrospective evaluation to assess the ability of a community-based diabetic teleretinal screening program to detect common ocular disease other than DR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 1,774 patients who underwent diabetic teleretinal screening was performed. Eye clinic notes from the Veterans Health Administration's electronic medical record, Computerized Patient Record System, were searched for each of the patients screened through teleretinal imaging. When a face-to-face examination note was present, the physical findings were compared to those obtained through teleretinal imaging. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for suspicious nerve, cataract, and age-related macular degeneration. RESULTS: A total of 903 patients underwent a clinical examination. The positive predictive value was highest for cataract (100%), suspicious nerve (93%), and macular degeneration (90%). The negative predictive value and the percent agreement between teleretinal imaging and a clinical examination were over 90% for each disease category. DISCUSSION: A teleretinal imaging protocol may be used to screen for other common ocular diseases. CONCLUSION: It may be feasible to use diabetic teleretinal photographs to screen patients for other potential eye diseases. Additional elements of the eye workup may be added to enhance accuracy of disease detection. Further study is necessary to confirm this initial retrospective review.
BACKGROUND:Diabetic teleretinal screening programs have been utilized successfully across the world to detect diabetic retinopathy (DR) and are well validated. Less information, however, exists on the ability of teleretinal imaging to detect nondiabetic ocular pathology. INTRODUCTION: This study performed a retrospective evaluation to assess the ability of a community-based diabetic teleretinal screening program to detect common ocular disease other than DR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 1,774 patients who underwent diabetic teleretinal screening was performed. Eye clinic notes from the Veterans Health Administration's electronic medical record, Computerized Patient Record System, were searched for each of the patients screened through teleretinal imaging. When a face-to-face examination note was present, the physical findings were compared to those obtained through teleretinal imaging. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for suspicious nerve, cataract, and age-related macular degeneration. RESULTS: A total of 903 patients underwent a clinical examination. The positive predictive value was highest for cataract (100%), suspicious nerve (93%), and macular degeneration (90%). The negative predictive value and the percent agreement between teleretinal imaging and a clinical examination were over 90% for each disease category. DISCUSSION: A teleretinal imaging protocol may be used to screen for other common ocular diseases. CONCLUSION: It may be feasible to use diabetic teleretinal photographs to screen patients for other potential eye diseases. Additional elements of the eye workup may be added to enhance accuracy of disease detection. Further study is necessary to confirm this initial retrospective review.
Authors: Andrea A Zin; Irena Tsui; Julia Rossetto; Zilton Vasconcelos; Kristina Adachi; Stephanie Valderramos; Umme-Aiman Halai; Marcos Vinicius da Silva Pone; Sheila Moura Pone; Joel Carlos Barros Silveira Filho; Mitsue S Aibe; Ana Carolina C da Costa; Olivia A Zin; Rubens Belfort; Patricia Brasil; Karin Nielsen-Saines; Maria Elisabeth Lopes Moreira Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Param Bhatter; Louie Cao; Austin Crochetiere; Sophia M Raefsky; Laura R Cuevas; Kaosoluchi Enendu; Emily H Frisch; Caleb Shumway; Charlotte Gore; Andrew W Browne Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Alexander S Himstead; Janani Prasad; Sean Melucci; Kevin M Gustafson; Paul E Israelsen; Andrew Browne Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 1.645
Authors: Mark B Horton; Christopher J Brady; Jerry Cavallerano; Michael Abramoff; Gail Barker; Michael F Chiang; Charlene H Crockett; Seema Garg; Peter Karth; Yao Liu; Clark D Newman; Siddarth Rathi; Veeral Sheth; Paolo Silva; Kristen Stebbins; Ingrid Zimmer-Galler Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Lulu Bursztyn; Maria A Woodward; Wayne T Cornblath; Hilary M Grabe; Jonathan D Trobe; Leslie Niziol; Lindsey B De Lott Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 3.536