BACKGROUND: Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide even though successful treatments exist. Improving screening and treatment could avoid many cases of vision loss. However, due to an increasing prevalence of diabetes, traditional in-person screening for DR for every diabetic patient is not feasible. Telemedicine is one viable solution to provide high-quality and efficient screening to large number of diabetic patients. PURPOSE: To provide a narrative review of large DR telemedicine screening programs. METHODS: Articles were identified through a comprehensive search of the English-language literature published between 2000 and 2014. Telemedicine screening programs were included for review if they had published data on at least 150 patients and had available validation studies supporting their model. Screening programs were then categorized according to their American Telemedicine Association Validation Level. RESULTS: Seven programs from the US and abroad were identified and included in the review. Three programs were Category 1 programs (Ophdiat, EyePacs, and Digiscope), two were Category 2 programs (Eye Check, NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Program), and two were Category 3 programs (Joslin Vision Network, Alberta Screening Program). No program was identified that claimed category 4 status. Programs ranged from community or city level programs to large nationwide programs including millions of individuals. The programs demonstrated a high level of clinical accuracy in screening for DR. There was no consensus amongst the programs regarding the need for dilation, need for stereoscopic images, or the level of training for approved image graders. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine programs have been clinically validated and successfully implemented across the globe. They can provide a high-level of clinical accuracy for screening for DR while improving patient access in a cost-effective and scalable manner.
BACKGROUND:Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide even though successful treatments exist. Improving screening and treatment could avoid many cases of vision loss. However, due to an increasing prevalence of diabetes, traditional in-person screening for DR for every diabeticpatient is not feasible. Telemedicine is one viable solution to provide high-quality and efficient screening to large number of diabeticpatients. PURPOSE: To provide a narrative review of large DR telemedicine screening programs. METHODS: Articles were identified through a comprehensive search of the English-language literature published between 2000 and 2014. Telemedicine screening programs were included for review if they had published data on at least 150 patients and had available validation studies supporting their model. Screening programs were then categorized according to their American Telemedicine Association Validation Level. RESULTS: Seven programs from the US and abroad were identified and included in the review. Three programs were Category 1 programs (Ophdiat, EyePacs, and Digiscope), two were Category 2 programs (Eye Check, NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Program), and two were Category 3 programs (Joslin Vision Network, Alberta Screening Program). No program was identified that claimed category 4 status. Programs ranged from community or city level programs to large nationwide programs including millions of individuals. The programs demonstrated a high level of clinical accuracy in screening for DR. There was no consensus amongst the programs regarding the need for dilation, need for stereoscopic images, or the level of training for approved image graders. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine programs have been clinically validated and successfully implemented across the globe. They can provide a high-level of clinical accuracy for screening for DR while improving patient access in a cost-effective and scalable manner.
Authors: Alan D Fleming; Sam Philip; Keith A Goatman; John A Olson; Peter F Sharp Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: J A Pugh; J M Jacobson; W A Van Heuven; J A Watters; M R Tuley; D R Lairson; R J Lorimor; A S Kapadia; R Velez Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1993-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: S Harding; R Greenwood; S Aldington; J Gibson; D Owens; R Taylor; E Kohner; P Scanlon; G Leese Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: G S Scotland; P McNamee; S Philip; A D Fleming; K A Goatman; G J Prescott; S Fonseca; P F Sharp; J A Olson Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-06-21 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Rolake O Alabi; Amy Ansin; Jameson Clover; John Wilkins; Naveen K Rao; Mark A Terry; Khoa D Tran; Christopher S Sales Journal: Cornea Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Jessica Cao; Brittany Chang-Kit; Glen Katsnelson; Parsa Merhraban Far; Elizabeth Uleryk; Adeteju Ogunbameru; Rafael N Miranda; Tina Felfeli Journal: Diagn Progn Res Date: 2022-07-14
Authors: Paolo Lanzetta; Valentina Sarao; Peter H Scanlon; Jane Barratt; Massimo Porta; Francesco Bandello; Anat Loewenstein Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 4.280