Literature DB >> 4000642

Diabetic retinopathy as detected using ophthalmoscopy, a nonmydriatic camera and a standard fundus camera.

R Klein, B E Klein, M W Neider, L D Hubbard, S M Meuer, R J Brothers.   

Abstract

The study was performed to evaluate whether the severity of diabetic retinopathy as assessed by three alternative methods was concordant with the severity of retinopathy as determined from 30 degrees stereoscopic photographs. The three methods were direct ophthalmoscopy through an undilated pupil, nonstereoscopic 45 degrees retinal photography through a pharmacologically undilated pupil and nonstereoscopic 45 degrees photography through a dilated pupil. A single 45 degrees photograph centered between the disc and fovea was taken and direct ophthalmoscopy was performed on 99 persons prior to pharmacological dilation of the pupil. After dilation, another 45 degrees photograph was taken of the same field, as well as 30 degrees stereoscopic color photographs of DRS fields 1, 2 and 4 (modified). Corresponding photographic fields were graded by masked, trained graders for the severity of retinopathy and for the presence of specified diabetic lesions using the Modified Airlie House Classification scheme. For three levels of severity of retinopathy (none, nonproliferative or proliferative) exact agreement between direct ophthalmoscopy and grading of retinopathy from stereoscopic photographs taken with the standard 30 degrees camera was 54.3% (n = 94). For four levels of severity of retinopathy (none, microaneurysms only, all other nonproliferative retinopathy and proliferative retinopathy), exact agreement between gradings of retinopathy of the 45 degrees photographs taken through undilated pupils and 30 degrees photographs taken through dilated pupils was 82.5% (n = 63); and for 45 degrees photographs and 30 degrees photographs taken through dilated pupils it was 86.5% (n = 74). These data suggest that 45 degrees nonstereoscopic fundus photographs, when graded according to a standard classification scheme, provide reasonably reliable photographic representation of the severity of retinopathy when broad overall categories are used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4000642     DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(85)34003-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  42 in total

1.  Complications of diabetes: screening for retinopathy and management of foot ulcers.

Authors:  A Melville; R Richardson; A McIntosh; C O'Keeffe; J Mason; J Peters; A Hutchinson
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-06

2.  Retinopathy in a population-based study.

Authors:  R Klein
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  1992

3.  Fundoscopy: to dilate or not to dilate?

Authors:  Gerald Liew; Paul Mitchell; Jie Jin Wang; Tien Yin Wong
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-01-07

4.  Assessment of non-mydriatic fundus photography in detection of diabetic retinopathy.

Authors:  R Williams; S Nussey; R Humphry; G Thompson
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-11-01

5.  The relation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to retinopathy in people with diabetes in the Cardiovascular Health Study.

Authors:  Ronald Klein; Emily K Marino; Lewis H Kuller; Joseph F Polak; Russell P Tracy; John S Gottdiener; Gregory L Burke; Larry D Hubbard; Robin Boineau
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Association of serum lipid levels with retinal hard exudate area in African Americans with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Evangelia Papavasileiou; Samaneh Davoudi; Ramak Roohipoor; Heeyoon Cho; Shreyas Kudrimoti; Heather Hancock; James G Wilson; Christopher Andreoli; Deeba Husain; Maurice James; Alan Penman; Ching J Chen; Lucia Sobrin
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  Assessment of non-mydriatic photography in detection of diabetic retinopathy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-12-13

8.  Screening for diabetic retinopathy in James Bay, Ontario: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  David Maberley; Hugh Walker; Anita Koushik; Alan Cruess
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-01-21       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 9.  Clinical practice guidelines for treatment of diabetes mellitus. Expert Committee of the Canadian Diabetes Advisory Board.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-09-01       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  A1C and diabetes diagnosis: The Rancho Bernardo Study.

Authors:  Caroline K Kramer; Maria Rosario G Araneta; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2009-10-16       Impact factor: 19.112

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.