3.8 Article

The prevalence of retinopathy in an unselected population of type 2 diabetes patients from Arhus County, Denmark

Journal

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 82, Issue 4, Pages 443-448

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2004.00270.x

Keywords

diabetic retinopathy; type 2 diabetes; prevalence; visual impairment; blindness risk; factors

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and the causes of visual impairment in an unselected population of type 2 diabetes patients, and to describe the risk factors for developing diabetic retinopathy in this population. Methods: A total of 10 851 type 2 diabetes patients were identified in the county of rhus. A representative sample of 378 patients underwent a routine ocular examination, including fundus photography. Blood pressure and serum haemoglobin A1c, total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride and apotipoprotein a were measured. Results: The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in the type 2 diabetes population was 31.5%. In all, 2.9% had proliferative diabetic retinopathy and 5.3% had clinically significant macular oedema. Of the latter, 8/20 (40%) were newly identified and had not yet been laser-treated. There was a positive correlation between severity of retinopathy and duration of diabetes, HbA(1c), systolic blood pressure and treatment with insulin. None of the patients had social blindness (visual acuity < 0.1), but 15/378 (4.0%) had developed visual impairment (VA < 0.3). Conclusion: The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and visual impairment in this unselected type 2 diabetes population was lower than anticipated from the existing literature, and causes other than diabetic retinopathy contributed significantly to the occurrence of visual loss. A substantial number of the patients with vision-threatening diabetic maculopathy had not been referred for timely photocoagulation treatment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available