4.1 Article

Validation of the electronic mailing of retinographs of diabetic patients in order to detect retinopathy in primary care

期刊

ATENCION PRIMARIA
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 119-123

出版社

EDICIONES DOYMA S A
DOI: 10.1157/13116625

关键词

diabetes mellitus type 2; diabetic retinopathy; diagnostic thechniques ophthalmological; reference standard; evaluation studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Evaluate concordance in biomicroscopy evaluation of diabetic retinopathy degree among ophthalmologists. Validation of e-mail transmission of digital fundus photographs of type 2 diabetes patients as a method of diabetic retinopathy detection. Design. Descriptive study. Setting. Urban, primary health centre, and hospital. Participants. Type 2 diabetic patients selected of consecutive form when going to the primary health center (n=352). Main measurements. Parallel observer-blind evaluation of degree of retinopathy through biomicroscopy performed by ophthalmologists, against digital photographic images sent by e-mail taken by the family doctors. Concordance in the biomicroscopy among ophthalmologists was previously tested. Results. Retinopathy was revealed in 25.70% of the retinographs; 10.44% was mild, 12.05% moderate, and 3.21% severe. Weighted kappa was 0.876 for biomicroscopy concordance. Sensitivity in detecting retinopathy is 76.6% and specificity 95.2%; 92.7% and 99.5% for ophthalmologist-derivable retinopathy. Sensitivity was 66.7% for non-mydriatic retinograph without dilation, 76.9% with elective dilation, and 85% with the mydriatic. Conclusions. Concordance in evaluation of retinopathy degree through biomicroscopy was very good. This allows using a single ophthalmologist's exploration as a reference model. E-mail transmission of the photograph of the back of the eye in type 2 diabetic patients as a retinopathy detection method is feasible. Regardless of the type of retinograph used, the photographs should be taken on the dilated eye, as this significantly improves sensitivity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据