4.4 Article

Improving the description of the retinal vasculature and patient history taking for monitoring systemic hypertension

期刊

OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 441-449

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.2001.00616.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Systemic hypertension is an important public health concern. If optometrists are to perform a more active role in the detection and monitoring of high blood pressure (BP), there is a need to improve the consistency of describing the retinal vasculature and to assess patient's ability to correctly report the diagnosis of hypertension, its control and medication. One hundred and one patients aged > 40 years were dilated and had fundus photography performed. BP was measured and a self-reported history of general health and current medication was compared with the records of their general practitioner (GP). The status of the retinal vasculature was quantified using a numeric scale by five clinicians and this was compared to the same evaluation performed with the aid of a basic pictorial grading scale. Image analysis was used to objectively measure the artery-to-vein (A/V) ratio and arterial reflex. Arteriolar tortuosity and calibre changes were found to be the most sensitive retinal signs of high BP. Using the grading scale to describe the retinal vasculature significantly improved inter- and intra-observer repeatability. Almost half the patients examined were on medication for high BP or cardiovascular disease. Patients' ability to give their complete medical history was poor, as was their ability to recall what medication they had been prescribed. GPs indicated it was useful to receive details of their patient's BP when it was > 140/90 mmHg. The use of improved description of the retinal vasculature and stronger links between optometrists and GPs may enhance future patient care. (C) 2001 The College of Optometrists. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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