4.6 Article

Effectiveness of optometrist screening for diabetic retinopathy using slit-lamp biomicroscopy

期刊

EYE
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 595-601

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2001.192

关键词

diabetes mellitus; mass screening; optometry; retinopathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To assess the effectiveness of optometrists as screeners for diabetic retinopathy using slit-lamp binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy through dilated pupils. Methods Prospective study of a screening scheme. Screening was performed by 27 locally accredited optometrists in their practice. The referral protocol used a new simple grading system of retinopathy, especially designed for use in an optometrist screening programme. All positive referrals and 10% of negative referrals were reexamined by an ophthalmologist. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and technical failure rates were calculated. Results The optometrists screened 4904 people with diabetes in 18 months. 'Subthreshold' (screen negative) reports accounted for 4438 (90.5% of 4904); 429 (9.67%) of these were re-examined at secondary screening. There was disagreement regarding grading in 13 patients, of whom 5 (1.16% of 429) had sight-threatening retinopathy (STDR); this extrapolates to 52 patients if all the 4438 test-negatives had been examined. Of the 371 'threshold' patients, 112 (30.18%) were false positives; the commonest cause for false positive referral was drusen in patients with background diabetic retinopathy. The sensitivity for identification of STDR was 76% (95% CI 70% to 81%) and specificity 95% (95% CI 95% to 96%). The likelihood ratio of a positive test indicating STDR was 16.54 (93% CI 14.17 to 19.23) and that of a negative test 0.25 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.32). The technical failure rate was 0.2%. Conclusions Suitably trained and accredited community optometrists performed well when screening for diabetic retinopathy using slit-lamp biomicroscopy through a dilated pupil. This was facilitated by the use of simple grading and referral criteria. The sensitivity, positive likelihood ratio and specificity were high.

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

4.6
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