4.3 Article

Comparison of dilated fundus examinations with seven-field stereo fundus photographs in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 323-329

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2008.02.010

Keywords

Retinopathy; Type 2 diabetes; Photography; Retinopathy screening

Funding

  1. Department of.Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development
  2. American Diabetes Association
  3. National Eye Institute
  4. Glaxo SmithKline Pharmaceuticals
  5. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals
  6. Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals
  7. Kos Pharmaceuticals

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) is a 20-medical center, prospective, randomized study of 1792 Type 2 diabetic individuals primarily aimed at determining whether intensive glycemic control prevents macrovascular events. We report a comparison of fundus photographs and ophthalmologic examination at baseline, permitting an evaluation of multiple settings similar to common clinical practice. Research Design and Methods: A 340-patient subset had both local dilated fundus examinations and centrally read seven-field stereo fundus photographs completed within 60 days of each other (median 28 days). Local examiners were unaware of the stereo photographs. Results: Overall, agreement within one step was 76% and exact agreement between ophthalmoscopy and central gradings of fundus photographs on a five-step retinopathy severity scale was 43% (weighted kappa 0.42, CI 0.35-0.48). In about 90% of disagreements the severity level was higher by photographic grading. The sensitivity for ophthalmoscopy compared to grading of fundus photographs for the detection of any retinopathy was 51% and specificity was 91%. For proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), sensitivity was 61% and specificity 98%. Only one eye was high-risk PDR, and it was detected by both methods. For clinically significant macular edema, these measures were 24% and 98%, respectively. The disagreements were of possible clinical importance in three cases (<1%). Conclusion: Most disagreements occurred in eyes rated near the milder end of a category and/or resulted from small differences between the ophthalmoscopic and photographic definitions used in classifying severity. There were reasonably few disagreements of possible clinical significance. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available