Journals Library

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the performance of digital imaging, compared with other modalities, in screening for and monitoring the development of diabetic retinopathy.

DESIGN

All imaging was acquired at a hospital assessment clinic. Subsequently, study optometrists examined the patients in their own premises. A subset of patients also had fluorescein angiography performed every 6 months.

SETTING

Research clinic at the hospital eye clinic and optometrists' own premises.

PARTICIPANTS

Study comprised 103 patients who had type 1 diabetes mellitus, 481 had type 2 diabetes mellitus and two had secondary diabetes mellitus; 157 (26.8%) had some form of retinopathy ('any') and 58 (9.9%) had referable retinopathy.

INTERVENTIONS

A repeat assessment was carried out of all patients 1 year after their initial assessment. Patients who had more severe forms of retinopathy were monitored more frequently for evidence of progression.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Detection of retinopathy, progression of retinopathy and determination of when treatment is required.

RESULTS

Manual grading of 35-mm colour slides produced the highest sensitivity and specificity figures, with optometrist examination recording most false negatives. Manual and automated analysis of digital images had intermediate sensitivity. Both manual grading of 35-mm colour slides and digital images gave sensitivities of over 90% with few false positives. Digital imaging produced 50% fewer ungradable images than colour slides. This part of the study was limited as patients with the more severe levels of retinopathy opted for treatment. There was an increase in the number of microaneurysms in those patients who developed from mild to moderate. There was no difference between the turnover rate of either new or regressed microaneurysms for patients with mild or with sight-threatening retinopathy. It was not possible in this study to ascertain whether digital imaging systems determine when treatment is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of a national screening programme for referable retinopathy, digital imaging is an effective method. In addition, technical failure rates are lower with digital imaging than conventional photography. Digital imaging is also a more sensitive technique than slit-lamp examination by optometrists. Automated grading can improve efficiency by correctly identifying just under half the population as having no retinopathy. Recommendations for future research include: investigating whether the nasal field is required for grading; a large screening programme is required to ascertain if automated grading can safely perform as a first-level grader; if colour improves the performance of grading digital images; investigating methods to ensure effective uptake in a diabetic retinopathy screening programme.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the performance of digital imaging, compared with other modalities, in screening for and monitoring the development of diabetic retinopathy.

DESIGN

All imaging was acquired at a hospital assessment clinic. Subsequently, study optometrists examined the patients in their own premises. A subset of patients also had fluorescein angiography performed every 6 months.

SETTING

Research clinic at the hospital eye clinic and optometrists' own premises.

PARTICIPANTS

Study comprised 103 patients who had type 1 diabetes mellitus, 481 had type 2 diabetes mellitus and two had secondary diabetes mellitus; 157 (26.8%) had some form of retinopathy ('any') and 58 (9.9%) had referable retinopathy.

INTERVENTIONS

A repeat assessment was carried out of all patients 1 year after their initial assessment. Patients who had more severe forms of retinopathy were monitored more frequently for evidence of progression.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Detection of retinopathy, progression of retinopathy and determination of when treatment is required.

RESULTS

Manual grading of 35-mm colour slides produced the highest sensitivity and specificity figures, with optometrist examination recording most false negatives. Manual and automated analysis of digital images had intermediate sensitivity. Both manual grading of 35-mm colour slides and digital images gave sensitivities of over 90% with few false positives. Digital imaging produced 50% fewer ungradable images than colour slides. This part of the study was limited as patients with the more severe levels of retinopathy opted for treatment. There was an increase in the number of microaneurysms in those patients who developed from mild to moderate. There was no difference between the turnover rate of either new or regressed microaneurysms for patients with mild or with sight-threatening retinopathy. It was not possible in this study to ascertain whether digital imaging systems determine when treatment is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of a national screening programme for referable retinopathy, digital imaging is an effective method. In addition, technical failure rates are lower with digital imaging than conventional photography. Digital imaging is also a more sensitive technique than slit-lamp examination by optometrists. Automated grading can improve efficiency by correctly identifying just under half the population as having no retinopathy. Recommendations for future research include: investigating whether the nasal field is required for grading; a large screening programme is required to ascertain if automated grading can safely perform as a first-level grader; if colour improves the performance of grading digital images; investigating methods to ensure effective uptake in a diabetic retinopathy screening programme.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions