0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Clinical Sciences |

Screening for Presence or Absence of Diabetic Retinopathy:  A Meta-analysis FREE

Peter Bragge, PhD; Russell L. Gruen, PhD, MBBS, FRACS; Marisa Chau, BBNSc(Hons); Andrew Forbes, PhD; Hugh R. Taylor, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: National Trauma Research Institute (Dr Bragge, Prof Gruen, and Ms Chau) and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital (Prof Forbes) and Harold Mitchell Chair of Indigenous Eye Health, Melbourne School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne (Prof Taylor), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.


Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(4):435-444. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.319.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

In 2000, 171 million people were estimated to have diabetes, and more than 5 million became blind owing to diabetic retinopathy (DR). This number is expected to double before 2030.13 Diabetic retinopathy is progressive change in vascular permeability and a proliferation of fragile, new retinal blood vessels.46 The duration of diabetes correlates with both DR and its severity.7,8 Even with optimal glucose control, nearly all diabetic persons will eventually develop DR.

Studies have demonstrated that early diagnosis and laser treatment of DR can prevent severe vision loss.911 Because DR has few symptoms until vision loss develops,12 regular DR screening is critical.3,13 Two recognized gold standards for DR screening are ophthalmological examination by a trained health professional (eg, ophthalmologist) using pupillary dilation (mydriasis) and stereoscopic 7-field fundus photography by a trained photographer with image interpretation by an experienced grader.4 Both methods require the specialist equipment and expertise of hospitals and specialist clinics.

Studies from Australia, the United States, and Spain show that only 50% to 60% of diabetic individuals are screened according to national guidelines.1416 Diabetic persons who live in rural and/or remote parts of high-income countries and those who live in low- and middle-income countries have poorer access to specialist ophthalmological services and lower rates of screening for DR.13,1719 Some populations have both high rates of diabetes and poor access to screening services. For example, 37% of indigenous adults in Australia have diabetes, 13% of whom have already progressed to diabetic vision loss.20 Yet, in this population, only 20% of diabetic persons have had an eye examination in the past year.21

Outreach clinics by visiting specialists have been shown to improve access to specialist services, including DR screening, for hard-to-reach populations.22,23 However, population-based DR screening is far more accessible if simple community-based screening facilities are routinely available. The need to bring the specialist to the patient in remote locations can be reduced for many types of health care, including screening for DR, using telemedicine technologies.24

A nonspecialist, community-based, outreach model for DR screening has emerged in which: (1) Photography is used instead of direct examination by a specialist clinician, and the image is then sent to a central specialist center. (2) The camera is operated by a photographer, technician, or health worker. (3) The pupil is generally not dilated (nonmydriatic), unlike direct ophthalmoscopic examination and other photographic methods, which require time-consuming and temporarily disabling pupil dilation. (4) The image is interpreted at a different place and time by an ophthalmologist or other trained reader.

This model has been applied in rural and/or remote areas of Australia25 and Canada,26 and for American Indian and Alaskan Native populations.27,28 For example, in the Kimberley region of northwestern Australia, local Aboriginal health care workers take retinal photographs that are subsequently interpreted by an ophthalmologist situated in Perth, 2000 km away.29 The outreach model has also been used in mobile vans in the United Kingdom.30

Outreach DR screening enables better coverage of at-risk populations, especially populations that are hard to reach.26 However, this carries the potential disadvantages of reductions in screening sensitivity (which would result in emergent cases of DR being missed) and specificity (creating undue referrals to costly specialist eye services). Our meta-analysis aimed to estimate the effect on screening accuracy of variations in mydriasis and in the medical qualifications of photographers, the 2 key characteristics of outreach screening methods that have the greatest potential effect on screening coverage.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, Rural and Remote Health Database (RURAL), and Indigenous Australia from their inception to June 2009. The search strategy comprised keywords for DR, DR-specific screening terms, and generic screening terms (Table 1). The reference lists of clinical guidelines and literature reviews (identified by searching these databases or already known by us) were searched for further relevant citations.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Example Search Strategy for Medline
INCLUSION CRITERIA

We included studies that aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a DR screening method among patients with diabetes or DR in which photography- or examination-based DR screening was compared with either 7-field mydriatic photography or dilated fundal examination by an ophthalmologist or equivalent specialist. Studies of automated analysis techniques and technologies were excluded because these are not currently standard practice. We included studies that measured sensitivity and specificity (widely accepted measures of a test's diagnostic accuracy31) to detect any DR, sight-threatening DR, or macular edema.

STUDY SELECTION

Two authors independently screened citations and full-text articles against inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus between these 2 authors or by adjudication from an ophthalmologist (H.R.T.).

DATA EXTRACTION

Database items were developed in consultation with an experienced ophthalmologist (H.R.T.). Data extraction was performed by 2 authors and piloted using 10 included studies. Approximately 10% of data were audited, and appropriate corrections were made to the data and protocols.

We extracted data regarding country, region, and setting (specialist clinic, hospital, primary health care clinic, or outreach), number of patients and/or eyes in the sample, patient characteristics (percentage of men, age, and number of years with diabetes), prevalence of any DR in the sample, and the reference standard (7-field mydriatic photography or dilated fundal examination). Screening methods were categorized by screening instrument (film, Polaroid, or digital camera, direct examination, or scanning laser ophthalmoscope), mydriatic status (mydriasis, no mydriasis, mixed or not reported), number of photographic fields, medical qualifications of photographers (photographer or technician, nurse, general practitioner, or ophthalmologist), and qualifications of interpreter (general practitioner, ophthalmologist, optician, or grader).

For meta-analysis, screening methods were collapsed into 6 categories:

  • Nonmydriatic camera, nonspecialist photographer: nonmydriatic photography performed by a person with no specialist medical or eye qualifications (nurse, photographer, or technician).

  • Mydriatic camera, nonspecialist photographer: mydriatic photography performed by a person with no specialist medical or eye qualifications.

  • Nonmydriatic camera, specialist photographer: nonmydriatic photography performed by a trained health professional (general practitioner or diabetologist) or person with specialist eye qualifications (ophthalmologist, retinal specialist, or optometrist).

  • Mydriatic camera, specialist photographer: mydriatic photography performed by a trained health professional (general practitioner or diabetologist) or person with specialist eye qualifications (ophthalmologist, retinal specialist, or optometrist).

  • Direct examination: direct eye examination methods.

  • Other: for example, photographer not reported, mydriatic status mixed or not reported, or a combination of examination and photography.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Study characteristics were tabulated. Meta-analysis using Stata version 10.1 statistical software (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas) determined sensitivity and specificity, adjusting for other characteristics of the studies and subjects. Forest plots portrayed sensitivity and specificity results of each included study. Owing to variations in the methods and reporting among studies, the unit of analysis was taken to be the number of patients rather than number of eyes. The quoted sensitivities and specificities in each article were then applied to the number of patients, producing a standard 2 × 2 table for each test within each article. Specificities of 100% were modified to enable analyses by reducing the number of true negatives by 1. We computed the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in the forest plots using the Wilson score interval method.32

To account for multiple tests within each study and heterogeneity of sensitivity and specificity across studies, a 3-level random-intercepts logistic regression model33 using 20 numerical quadrature points was used, producing pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity and 95% CIs (procedure xtmelogit in Stata version 10.1). This model accommodates heterogeneity in the sensitivity and specificity (on the logit scale) between studies and also between tests within the same study. Information concerning repeated measurement of subjects within the same study was not available; therefore, the logistic models assume that a different set of subjects was assessed for each test within each study.

Estimates of odds ratios (ORs) comparing sensitivity and specificity across subgroups were obtained by including the relevant covariate in the regression models. The small number of studies and tests within studies necessitated that all models assumed that the level of heterogeneity across studies and tests within studies were constant across subgroups. When the number of studies was very small and computational difficulties were encountered, the test-within-study variance component was omitted, and modeling proceeded using the between-study variance component only.

SEARCH AND SELECTION

A flowchart of the search and selection of titles and abstracts is shown in Figure 1. Three hundred sixty-three titles and abstracts were identified; 188 potentially relevant full-text articles were evaluated; and 43 studies measured DR screening sensitivity and specificity. However, 22 different measures of DR were reported, using various permutations and combinations of DR classification levels. Only the category of “any DR” had sufficient consistency in definition, number of studies (n = 20), and number of sensitivity and specificity assessments (n = 40) for meta-analysis. The most common reason for exclusion of full-text articles was lack of comparison of screening method(s) with an accepted reference standard (n = 59).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flowchart of the search and selection of titles and abstracts. DR indicates diabetic retinopathy.

Graphic Jump Location
DATA EXTRACTION

Of the 20 included studies, 6 were conducted in the United Kingdom,3439 5 in the United States,27,4043 3 in Spain,4446 and 1 each in Australia,47 Canada,26 Germany,48 Hong Kong,49 India,50 and the Netherlands51 (Table 2). Study settings were commonly diabetes clinics, primary health care facilities, and hospitals (4 studies each). The mean sample size was 207 patients (range, 14-773 patients). The mean age of study participants was 58.0 years (range, 48.0-68.8 years), and the mean percentage of male participants was 55.2% (range, 31.0%-98.4%). The mean duration of diabetes was 10.9 years (range, 3.7-17.7 years), and the mean prevalence of any DR was 46.0% (range, 9.0%-83.8%). Eleven studies contributed 1 assessment of a screening method; 4 studies contributed 2 screening assessments; 2 studies contributed 3 assessments; and 3 separate studies contributed 4, 5, and 6 assessments, respectively (Table 3).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Characteristics of Studies That Measured the Sensitivity and Specificity of Tests Designed to Detect Any Diabetic Retinopathy
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Screening Methods of Studies That Measured the Sensitivity and Specificity of Tests Designed to Detect Any Diabetic Retinopathy

The screening methods used were the use of a digital camera (17 assessments), the use of a film camera (8 assessments), direct examination (8 assessments), the use of a Polaroid camera (3 assessments), the use of various combinations of camera types or camera plus examination (3 assessments), and the use of a scanning laser ophthalmoscope (1 assessment) (Table 3). Pharmacological mydriasis was used in 23 assessments, no mydriasis was used in 12 assessments, a combination of mydriasis and no mydriasis was used in 4 assessments, and mydriatic status was not reported in 1 assessment. Of the methods involving imaging, single-field photography was most common (15 assessments), followed by 3-field photography (8 assessments) and 2-field photography (4 assessments).

Images were most frequently taken by a photographer or technician (12 assessments), general practitioner or physician (8 assessments), or nurse (3 assessments) and were most frequently interpreted by an ophthalmologist (16 assessments), trainee ophthalmologist (4 assessments), retinal specialist (4 assessments), or optometrist (4 assessments). Reference standards were dilated fundal examination (23 assessments), 7-field mydriatic photography (16 assessments), or both (1 assessment).

For statistical meta-analysis, 5 assessments were made using a nonmydriatic camera with a nonspecialist photographer; 8, mydriatic camera, nonspecialist photographer; 4, nonmydriatic camera, specialist photographer, 3, mydriatic camera, specialist photographer; 8, direct examination; and 12, the “other” category (eg, photographer not reported, mydriatic status mixed or not reported, or a combination of examination and photography).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Individual study estimates of sensitivity and specificity for detecting any DR are contained in the forest plots in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The point estimates and 95% CIs are displayed, with screening assessments grouped by mydriatic status. For 2 studies,39,49 the lower limit of the 95% CI for sensitivity was less than 25% (Figure 2). Pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity by mydriatic group and overall are also displayed in Figures 2 and 3. The pooled estimates for all included studies were 82.5% (95% CI, 75.6%-87.9%) and 88.4% (95% CI, 84.5%-91.4%) for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates for the 4 assessments that used a mix of nonmydriatic and mydriatic (ie, mydriasis as required) screening methods26,39,44 were 68.7% (95% CI, 43.4%-86.3%) and 89.0% (95% CI, 77.3%-95.1%), respectively.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Sensitivity to detect any diabetic retinopathy by mydriatic status. CI indicates confidence interval; DE, direct examination; NS, nonspecialist; O, outreach; Pol., Polaroid; S, specialist; SLO, scanning laser ophthalmoscope.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Specificity to detect any diabetic retinopathy by mydriatic status. CI indicates confidence interval; DE, direct examination; NS, nonspecialist; O, outreach; Pol., Polaroid; S, specialist; SLO, scanning laser ophthalmoscope.

Graphic Jump Location

Pooled estimates for various subgroups from the logistic regression models are presented in Table 4. All pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were greater than 80% except for the mydriatic status mixed or not reported category (sensitivity, 74.8%) and the direct examination category (sensitivity, 73.5% in photographer analysis and 73.9% in combination analysis). Variations in mydriatic status alone did not significantly influence sensitivity (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.56-1.41; P = .61) or specificity (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.57-1.54; P = .80) to detect any DR.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Effect of Mydriatic Status and Photographer Medical Qualifications on Sensitivity and Specificity to Detect Any Diabetic Retinopathy

Variations in photographer medical qualification alone did not significantly influence sensitivity (P = .75) to detect any DR. The odds of a positive test result for diagnosing any DR when it was evident with the reference standard for photographers with specialist medical or eye qualifications were 1.25 times that of photographers without specialist medical or eye qualifications (95% CI, 0.31-5.12). For mydriatic camera methods, the OR was 1.61 (95% CI, 0.36-7.30; P = .54), and for nonmydriatic camera methods, the OR was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.30-5.66; P = .72).

The specificity of detection of any DR, however, was significantly higher for screening methods that use a photographer with specialist medical or eye qualifications (P = .001). When photographs were taken by photographers with specialist medical or eye qualifications, the odds of a negative screening test when DR was not evident with the reference standard were 3.86 times that when photographs were taken by photographers without specialist medical or eye qualifications (95% CI, 1.78-8.37). This was largely owing to the effect of specialists vs nonspecialists in photographs taken without mydriasis (OR, 5.65; 95% CI, 2.24-14.25; P < .001). For tests using mydriasis, although specificity was again greater for photographers with specialist medical or eye qualifications, this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 0.86-6.84; P = .09). One study46 yielded 6 of the 7 assessments in the “specialist” category.

In our meta-analysis of 40 assessments of 20 studies from 9 countries, sensitivity to detect any DR was not influenced by variations in mydriatic status or photographer medical qualifications, either alone or in combination. Therefore, retinal photography by a photographer with no specialist medical or eye qualifications (ie, a health worker or nurse), without using pupil-dilating eye drops (the outreach model), appears unlikely to miss cases of DR that screening methods using mydriasis or a photographer with specialist medical or eye qualifications would detect.

Improving screening coverage can prevent blindness due to DR and reduce overall health care costs; mathematical modeling demonstrates that increasing screening coverage from 30% to 80% in Australia would reduce the overall health care cost of DR and its consequences from approximately $193 million to $178 million per year.52 The relative benefit is likely much greater in rural and remote areas where specialist resources are scarce and diabetes prevalence is proportionally higher.

Most guidelines recommend annual screening of patients with diabetes.13,53 Javitt et al54 modeled the relationship between screening sensitivity and person-years of sight saved for annual screening and found that sensitivity values greater than 60% do not substantially add to person-years of sight saved or reduce screening costs. Javitt et al hypothesized that the diminishing additional benefit of sensitivity values greater than 60% was owing to the frequency of screening and the likelihood that DR cases missed on one visit will be detected on the next. In our meta-analysis, the pooled estimates for sensitivity to detect any DR for all image-based screening methods, regardless of mydriatic status and photographer medical qualifications, were greater than 80%.

We found that screening involving photographers without specialist medical or eye qualifications yielded significantly lower specificity (ie, a greater false positive rate) than screening involving photographers with specialist medical or eye qualifications, particularly when mydriasis was not used. This finding should be interpreted in the context that 1 study46 yielded 6 of the 7 assessments in the specialist category. The greater number of false positives found when photographers without specialist medical or eye qualifications were used may be owing to imaging difficulties or poorer image quality in their photographs, especially when the pupil is not dilated. The result may be a referral to an eye specialist for further examination. In addition to inconveniencing patients, unnecessary referrals place a burden on limited ophthalmological infrastructure and personnel. Although false positives may be less harmful than missing DR and the opportunity to prevent vision loss, they may offset some of the economic advantages of outreach screening methods.

Only 4 assessments from 3 studies followed a mixed strategy of using mydriasis when required to obtain a better image. This is potentially a pragmatic, “best of both worlds” approach in which the time delay and discomfort of mydriasis is mostly avoided without compromising sensitivity and specificity. The pooled sensitivity estimate for these studies (68.7%) was lower than for other categories, although it still exceeded the threshold reported in Javitt et al,54 and the specificity for mixed mydriasis (88.8%) was comparable with that of other screening methods. Further research is required to gain a more robust picture of the accuracy of this approach.

Although we considered studies that examined accuracy of detection of all degrees of retinopathy, we were only able to analyze studies of screening to detect any DR. There was too much variation in other categories of DR and too few assessments in any 1 category. Future studies of DR screening accuracy should use a consistent DR classification scheme, such as that of the International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Disease Severity Scale.55 This scale was designed to enable clinically important DR grades to be identified by less experienced screeners, therefore improving communication between the various health professions involved in DR screening.4 It also specifies the equivalence of the most frequently used DR classification scale (ie, the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale) to the International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Disease Severity Scale.

Furthermore, 12 assessments from 9 studies had to be classified as “other” for analysis purposes. In 7 assessments, this was because details of the photographer could not be ascertained. Better reporting of such details of DR screening methods, combined with a consistent approach to DR classification, would enable a greater range of measures in DR screening studies to be meaningfully compared and analyzed.

This meta-analysis found that outreach DR screening is an effective alternative to screening that uses mydriasis or a medical specialist photographer. The outreach model has enormous potential to increase the screening coverage of at-risk populations in areas of the world where specialist ophthalmic resources are limited and to be a cost-effective way of preventing blindness among diabetics. Outreach DR screening could therefore contribute substantially to the Vision 2020 objective of setting up systems to prevent DR-related vision loss in high-risk countries, “taking into account the country's resources, social expectations and health-care infrastructure.”13

Correspondence: Hugh R. Taylor, MD, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Level 5, 207 Bouverie St, Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria 3053, Australia (h.taylor@unimelb.edu.au).

Submitted for Publication: March 4, 2010; final revision received September 12, 2010; accepted September 15, 2010.

Published Online: December 13, 2010. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.319

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by funding from the Harold Mitchell Foundation, the Ian Potter Foundation, and the Cybec Foundation; and a National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Award (Prof Gruen).

Role of the Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Additional Contributions: We thank Anne Parkhill, MBIT, DipLib, from Aptly Information Design for developing the search strategy, Jason Wasiak, MPH, from Monash University, Alfred Hospital, for his contribution to study selection, and Ornella Clavisi, MPH, BSc(Hons) from Monash University and Alex Hewitt, MD, PhD, from the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, and Nathalie Colomer, MD, from Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile for their contribution to the data extraction protocol design. Anne Parkhill received financial compensation for her contribution to this manuscript.

Wild  SRoglic  GGreen  ASicree  RKing  H Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004;27 (5) 1047- 1053
PubMed Link to Article
Resnikoff  SPascolini  DEtya’ale  D  et al.  Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ 2004;82 (11) 844- 851
PubMed
World Health Organization,Priority eye diseases. http://www.who.int/blindness/causes/priority/en/print.html. Accessed May 12, 2010
National Health and Medical Research Council, Guidelines for the Management of Diabetic Retinopathy.  Canberra, Australia Commonwealth of Australia2008;
Williams  RAirey  MBaxter  HForrester  JKennedy-Martin  TGirach  A Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema: a systematic review. Eye (Lond) 2004;18 (10) 963- 983
PubMed Link to Article
Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, Specialist Eye Health Guidelines for Use in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Populations: Cataract, Diabetic Retinopathy, Trachoma.  Canberra, Australia Dept of Health and Aged Care, Commonwealth of Australia2001;
Klein  RKlein  BEMoss  SEDavis  MDDeMets  DL The Wisconsin epidemiologic study of diabetic retinopathy, II: prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is less than 30 years. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102 (4) 520- 526
PubMed Link to Article
Lim  AStewart  JChui  TY  et al.  Prevalence and risk factors of diabetic retinopathy in a multi-racial underserved population. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2008;15 (6) 402- 409
PubMed Link to Article
The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group, Photocoagulation treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy; clinical application of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) findings, DRS Report Number 8. Ophthalmology 1981;88 (7) 583- 600
PubMed Link to Article
Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group, Early photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy: ETDRS report number 9. Ophthalmology 1991;98 (5) ((suppl)) 766- 785
PubMed Link to Article
Ferris  FL  III How effective are treatments for diabetic retinopathy? JAMA 1993;269 (10) 1290- 1291
PubMed Link to Article
Fong  DSAiello  LGardner  TW  et al. American Diabetes Association, Retinopathy in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27 ((suppl 1)) S84- S87
PubMed Link to Article
World Health Organization, Vision 2020: The Right to Sight: Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable Blindness: Action Plan 2006-2011.  Paris, France World Health Organization2007;
McKay  R McCarty  CATaylor  HR Diabetic retinopathy in Victoria, Australia: the Visual Impairment Project. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84 (8) 865- 870
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  PPFeldman  ZWOstermann  JBrown  DSSloan  FA Longitudinal rates of annual eye examinations of persons with diabetes and chronic eye diseases. Ophthalmology 2003;110 (10) 1952- 1959
PubMed Link to Article
Soto-Pedre  EHernaez-Ortega  MC Screening coverage for diabetic retinopathy using a three-field digital non-mydriatic fundus camera. Prim Care Diabetes 2008;2 (3) 141- 146
PubMed Link to Article
Taylor  CRMerin  LMSalunga  AM  et al.  Improving diabetic retinopathy screening ratios using telemedicine-based digital retinal imaging technology: the Vine Hill Study. Diabetes Care 2007;30 (3) 574- 578
PubMed Link to Article
Leese  GPAhmed  SNewton  RW  et al.  Use of mobile screening unit for diabetic retinopathy in rural and urban areas. BMJ 1993;306 (6871) 187- 189
PubMed Link to Article
Taylor  RBritish Diabetic Association Mobile Retinal Screening Group, Practical community screening for diabetic retinopathy using the mobile retinal camera: report of a 12 centre study. Diabet Med 1996;13 (11) 946- 952
PubMed Link to Article
Taylor  HRNational Indigenous Eye Health Survey Team, National Indigenous Eye Health Survey.  Melbourne, Australia Indigenous Eye Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne2009;
Taylor  HRXie  JFox  SDunn  RAArnold  ALKeeffe  JE The prevalence and causes of vision loss in Indigenous Australians: the National Indigenous Eye Health Survey. Med J Aust 2010;192 (6) 312- 318
PubMed
Gruen  RLWeeramanthri  TSKnight  SEBailie  RS Specialist outreach clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (1) CD003798
PubMed
Gruen  RLBailie  RSWang  ZHeard  SO’Rourke  IC Specialist outreach to isolated and disadvantaged communities: a population-based study. Lancet 2006;368 (9530) 130- 138
PubMed Link to Article
Nathoo  NNg  MRudnisky  CJTennant  MT The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy as identified by teleophthalmology in rural Alberta. Can J Ophthalmol 2010;45 (1) 28- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Harper  CALivingston  PMWood  C  et al.  Screening for diabetic retinopathy using a non-mydriatic retinal camera in rural Victoria. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1998;26 (2) 117- 121
PubMed Link to Article
Maberley  DCruess  AFBarile  GSlakter  J Digital photographic screening for diabetic retinopathy in the James Bay Cree. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2002;9 (3) 169- 178
PubMed Link to Article
Bursell  SECavallerano  JDCavallerano  AA  et al. Joslin Vision Network Research Team, Stereo nonmydriatic digital-video color retinal imaging compared with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study seven standard field 35-mm stereo color photos for determining level of diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (3) 572- 585
PubMed Link to Article
Dept of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service Division of Diabetes Treatment and Prevention,Indian Health Service–Joslin Vision Network Teleophthalmology Program. http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/Diabetes/HomeDocs/Resources/FactSheets/JVN_FactSheet03.13.08.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2010
Murray  RBMetcalf  SMLewis  PMMein  JK McAllister  IL Sustaining remote-area programs: retinal camera use by Aboriginal health workers and nurses in a Kimberley partnership. Med J Aust 2005;182 (10) 520- 523
PubMed
Leese  GPNewton  RWJung  RTHaining  WEllingford  A Screening for diabetic retinopathy in a widely spaced population using non-mydriatic fundus photography in a mobile unit: Tayside Mobile Eye Screening Unit. Diabet Med 1992;9 (5) 459- 462
PubMed Link to Article
Jones  CMAthanasiou  T Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis: review of an important tool in radiological research and decision making. Br J Radiol 2009;82 (978) 441- 446
PubMed Link to Article
Newcombe  RG Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17 (8) 857- 872
PubMed Link to Article
Skrondal  ARabe-Hesketh  S Generalized Latent Variable Modeling: Multilevel, Longitudinal and Structural Equation Models.  Boca Raton, FL Chapman & Hall/CRC Press2004;
Williams  RNussey  SHumphry  RThompson  G Assessment of non-mydriatic fundus photography in detection of diabetic retinopathy. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1986;293 (6555) 1140- 1142
Link to Article
Taylor  DJFisher  JJacob  JTooke  JE The use of digital cameras in a mobile retinal screening environment. Diabet Med 1999;16 (8) 680- 686
PubMed Link to Article
Hulme  SATin-U  AHardy  KJJoyce  PW Evaluation of a district-wide screening programme for diabetic retinopathy utilizing trained optometrists using slit-lamp and Volk lenses. Diabet Med 2002;19 (9) 741- 745
PubMed Link to Article
Olson  JAStrachan  FMHipwell  JH  et al.  A comparative evaluation of digital imaging, retinal photography and optometrist examination in screening for diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med 2003;20 (7) 528- 534
PubMed Link to Article
Murgatroyd  HEllingford  ACox  A  et al.  Effect of mydriasis and different field strategies on digital image screening of diabetic eye disease. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88 (7) 920- 924
Link to Article
Herbert  HMJordan  KFlanagan  DW Is screening with digital imaging using one retinal view adequate? Eye (Lond) 2003;17 (4) 497- 500
PubMed Link to Article
Peters  ALDavidson  MBZiel  FH Cost-effective screening for diabetic retinopathy using a nonmydriatic retinal camera in a prepaid health-care setting. Diabetes Care 1993;16 (8) 1193- 1195
PubMed Link to Article
Lawrence  MG The accuracy of digital-video retinal imaging to screen for diabetic retinopathy: an analysis of two digital-video retinal imaging systems using standard stereoscopic seven-field photography and dilated clinical examination as reference standards. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2004;102321- 340
PubMed
Kleinstein  RNRoseman  JMHerman  WHHolcombe  JLouv  WC Detection of diabetic retinopathy by optometrists. J Am Optom Assoc 1987;58 (11) 879- 882
PubMed
Friberg  TRPandya  AEller  AW Non-mydriatic panoramic fundus imaging using a non-contact scanning laser-based system. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2003;34 (6) 488- 497
Molina Fernández  EValero Moll  MSPedregal González  M  et al.  Validation of the electronic mailing of retinographs of diabetic patients in order to detect retinopathy in primary care [in Spanish]. Aten Primaria 2008;40 (3) 119- 123
PubMed Link to Article
Lopez-Bastida  JCabrera-Lopez  FSerrano-Aguilar  P Sensitivity and specificity of digital retinal imaging for screening diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med 2007;24 (4) 403- 407
Link to Article
Baeza  MOrozco-Beltrán  DGil-Guillen  VF  et al.  Screening for sight threatening diabetic retinopathy using non-mydriatic retinal camera in a primary care setting: to dilate or not to dilate? Int J Clin Pract 2009;63 (3) 433- 438
PubMed Link to Article
Schmid  KLSwann  PGPedersen  CSchmid  LM The detection of diabetic retinopathy by Australian optometrists. Clin Exp Optom 2002;85 (4) 221- 228
PubMed Link to Article
Neubauer  ASRothschuh  AUlbig  MWBlum  M Digital fundus image grading with the non-mydriatic Visucam(PRO NM) versus the FF450(plus) camera in diabetic retinopathy. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 2008;86 (2) 177- 182
Link to Article
Siu  SCKo  TCWong  KWChan  WN Effectiveness of non-mydriatic retinal photography and direct ophthalmoscopy in detecting diabetic retinopathy. Hong Kong Med J 1998;4 (4) 367- 370
PubMed
Verma  LPrakash  GTewari  HKGupta  SKMurthy  GVSharma  N Screening for diabetic retinopathy by non-ophthalmologists: an effective public health tool. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2003;81 (4) 373- 377
PubMed Link to Article
Reenders  Kde Nobel  Evan den Hoogen  Hvan Weel  C Screening for diabetic retinopathy by general practitioners. Scand J Prim Health Care 1992;10 (4) 306- 309
PubMed Link to Article
National Health and Medical Research Council, Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of Diabetic Retinopathy.  Canberra, Australia Commonwealth Dept of Health and Family Services1997;
American Academy of Ophthalmology Retina Panel, Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines: Diabetic Retinopathy.  San Francisco, CA American Academy of Ophthalmology2008;
Javitt  JCCanner  JKFrank  RGSteinwachs  DMSommer  A Detecting and treating retinopathy in patients with type I diabetes mellitus: a health policy model. Ophthalmology 1990;97 (4) 483- 495
PubMed Link to Article
American Academy of Ophthalmology,International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Disease Severity Scale. http://www.icoph.org/pdf/Diabetic-Retinopathy-Detail.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2010

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flowchart of the search and selection of titles and abstracts. DR indicates diabetic retinopathy.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Sensitivity to detect any diabetic retinopathy by mydriatic status. CI indicates confidence interval; DE, direct examination; NS, nonspecialist; O, outreach; Pol., Polaroid; S, specialist; SLO, scanning laser ophthalmoscope.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Specificity to detect any diabetic retinopathy by mydriatic status. CI indicates confidence interval; DE, direct examination; NS, nonspecialist; O, outreach; Pol., Polaroid; S, specialist; SLO, scanning laser ophthalmoscope.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Example Search Strategy for Medline
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Characteristics of Studies That Measured the Sensitivity and Specificity of Tests Designed to Detect Any Diabetic Retinopathy
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Screening Methods of Studies That Measured the Sensitivity and Specificity of Tests Designed to Detect Any Diabetic Retinopathy
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Effect of Mydriatic Status and Photographer Medical Qualifications on Sensitivity and Specificity to Detect Any Diabetic Retinopathy

References

Wild  SRoglic  GGreen  ASicree  RKing  H Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004;27 (5) 1047- 1053
PubMed Link to Article
Resnikoff  SPascolini  DEtya’ale  D  et al.  Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ 2004;82 (11) 844- 851
PubMed
World Health Organization,Priority eye diseases. http://www.who.int/blindness/causes/priority/en/print.html. Accessed May 12, 2010
National Health and Medical Research Council, Guidelines for the Management of Diabetic Retinopathy.  Canberra, Australia Commonwealth of Australia2008;
Williams  RAirey  MBaxter  HForrester  JKennedy-Martin  TGirach  A Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema: a systematic review. Eye (Lond) 2004;18 (10) 963- 983
PubMed Link to Article
Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, Specialist Eye Health Guidelines for Use in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Populations: Cataract, Diabetic Retinopathy, Trachoma.  Canberra, Australia Dept of Health and Aged Care, Commonwealth of Australia2001;
Klein  RKlein  BEMoss  SEDavis  MDDeMets  DL The Wisconsin epidemiologic study of diabetic retinopathy, II: prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is less than 30 years. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102 (4) 520- 526
PubMed Link to Article
Lim  AStewart  JChui  TY  et al.  Prevalence and risk factors of diabetic retinopathy in a multi-racial underserved population. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2008;15 (6) 402- 409
PubMed Link to Article
The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group, Photocoagulation treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy; clinical application of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) findings, DRS Report Number 8. Ophthalmology 1981;88 (7) 583- 600
PubMed Link to Article
Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group, Early photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy: ETDRS report number 9. Ophthalmology 1991;98 (5) ((suppl)) 766- 785
PubMed Link to Article
Ferris  FL  III How effective are treatments for diabetic retinopathy? JAMA 1993;269 (10) 1290- 1291
PubMed Link to Article
Fong  DSAiello  LGardner  TW  et al. American Diabetes Association, Retinopathy in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27 ((suppl 1)) S84- S87
PubMed Link to Article
World Health Organization, Vision 2020: The Right to Sight: Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable Blindness: Action Plan 2006-2011.  Paris, France World Health Organization2007;
McKay  R McCarty  CATaylor  HR Diabetic retinopathy in Victoria, Australia: the Visual Impairment Project. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84 (8) 865- 870
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  PPFeldman  ZWOstermann  JBrown  DSSloan  FA Longitudinal rates of annual eye examinations of persons with diabetes and chronic eye diseases. Ophthalmology 2003;110 (10) 1952- 1959
PubMed Link to Article
Soto-Pedre  EHernaez-Ortega  MC Screening coverage for diabetic retinopathy using a three-field digital non-mydriatic fundus camera. Prim Care Diabetes 2008;2 (3) 141- 146
PubMed Link to Article
Taylor  CRMerin  LMSalunga  AM  et al.  Improving diabetic retinopathy screening ratios using telemedicine-based digital retinal imaging technology: the Vine Hill Study. Diabetes Care 2007;30 (3) 574- 578
PubMed Link to Article
Leese  GPAhmed  SNewton  RW  et al.  Use of mobile screening unit for diabetic retinopathy in rural and urban areas. BMJ 1993;306 (6871) 187- 189
PubMed Link to Article
Taylor  RBritish Diabetic Association Mobile Retinal Screening Group, Practical community screening for diabetic retinopathy using the mobile retinal camera: report of a 12 centre study. Diabet Med 1996;13 (11) 946- 952
PubMed Link to Article
Taylor  HRNational Indigenous Eye Health Survey Team, National Indigenous Eye Health Survey.  Melbourne, Australia Indigenous Eye Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne2009;
Taylor  HRXie  JFox  SDunn  RAArnold  ALKeeffe  JE The prevalence and causes of vision loss in Indigenous Australians: the National Indigenous Eye Health Survey. Med J Aust 2010;192 (6) 312- 318
PubMed
Gruen  RLWeeramanthri  TSKnight  SEBailie  RS Specialist outreach clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (1) CD003798
PubMed
Gruen  RLBailie  RSWang  ZHeard  SO’Rourke  IC Specialist outreach to isolated and disadvantaged communities: a population-based study. Lancet 2006;368 (9530) 130- 138
PubMed Link to Article
Nathoo  NNg  MRudnisky  CJTennant  MT The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy as identified by teleophthalmology in rural Alberta. Can J Ophthalmol 2010;45 (1) 28- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Harper  CALivingston  PMWood  C  et al.  Screening for diabetic retinopathy using a non-mydriatic retinal camera in rural Victoria. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1998;26 (2) 117- 121
PubMed Link to Article
Maberley  DCruess  AFBarile  GSlakter  J Digital photographic screening for diabetic retinopathy in the James Bay Cree. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2002;9 (3) 169- 178
PubMed Link to Article
Bursell  SECavallerano  JDCavallerano  AA  et al. Joslin Vision Network Research Team, Stereo nonmydriatic digital-video color retinal imaging compared with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study seven standard field 35-mm stereo color photos for determining level of diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (3) 572- 585
PubMed Link to Article
Dept of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service Division of Diabetes Treatment and Prevention,Indian Health Service–Joslin Vision Network Teleophthalmology Program. http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/Diabetes/HomeDocs/Resources/FactSheets/JVN_FactSheet03.13.08.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2010
Murray  RBMetcalf  SMLewis  PMMein  JK McAllister  IL Sustaining remote-area programs: retinal camera use by Aboriginal health workers and nurses in a Kimberley partnership. Med J Aust 2005;182 (10) 520- 523
PubMed
Leese  GPNewton  RWJung  RTHaining  WEllingford  A Screening for diabetic retinopathy in a widely spaced population using non-mydriatic fundus photography in a mobile unit: Tayside Mobile Eye Screening Unit. Diabet Med 1992;9 (5) 459- 462
PubMed Link to Article
Jones  CMAthanasiou  T Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis: review of an important tool in radiological research and decision making. Br J Radiol 2009;82 (978) 441- 446
PubMed Link to Article
Newcombe  RG Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17 (8) 857- 872
PubMed Link to Article
Skrondal  ARabe-Hesketh  S Generalized Latent Variable Modeling: Multilevel, Longitudinal and Structural Equation Models.  Boca Raton, FL Chapman & Hall/CRC Press2004;
Williams  RNussey  SHumphry  RThompson  G Assessment of non-mydriatic fundus photography in detection of diabetic retinopathy. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1986;293 (6555) 1140- 1142
Link to Article
Taylor  DJFisher  JJacob  JTooke  JE The use of digital cameras in a mobile retinal screening environment. Diabet Med 1999;16 (8) 680- 686
PubMed Link to Article
Hulme  SATin-U  AHardy  KJJoyce  PW Evaluation of a district-wide screening programme for diabetic retinopathy utilizing trained optometrists using slit-lamp and Volk lenses. Diabet Med 2002;19 (9) 741- 745
PubMed Link to Article
Olson  JAStrachan  FMHipwell  JH  et al.  A comparative evaluation of digital imaging, retinal photography and optometrist examination in screening for diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med 2003;20 (7) 528- 534
PubMed Link to Article
Murgatroyd  HEllingford  ACox  A  et al.  Effect of mydriasis and different field strategies on digital image screening of diabetic eye disease. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88 (7) 920- 924
Link to Article
Herbert  HMJordan  KFlanagan  DW Is screening with digital imaging using one retinal view adequate? Eye (Lond) 2003;17 (4) 497- 500
PubMed Link to Article
Peters  ALDavidson  MBZiel  FH Cost-effective screening for diabetic retinopathy using a nonmydriatic retinal camera in a prepaid health-care setting. Diabetes Care 1993;16 (8) 1193- 1195
PubMed Link to Article
Lawrence  MG The accuracy of digital-video retinal imaging to screen for diabetic retinopathy: an analysis of two digital-video retinal imaging systems using standard stereoscopic seven-field photography and dilated clinical examination as reference standards. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2004;102321- 340
PubMed
Kleinstein  RNRoseman  JMHerman  WHHolcombe  JLouv  WC Detection of diabetic retinopathy by optometrists. J Am Optom Assoc 1987;58 (11) 879- 882
PubMed
Friberg  TRPandya  AEller  AW Non-mydriatic panoramic fundus imaging using a non-contact scanning laser-based system. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2003;34 (6) 488- 497
Molina Fernández  EValero Moll  MSPedregal González  M  et al.  Validation of the electronic mailing of retinographs of diabetic patients in order to detect retinopathy in primary care [in Spanish]. Aten Primaria 2008;40 (3) 119- 123
PubMed Link to Article
Lopez-Bastida  JCabrera-Lopez  FSerrano-Aguilar  P Sensitivity and specificity of digital retinal imaging for screening diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med 2007;24 (4) 403- 407
Link to Article
Baeza  MOrozco-Beltrán  DGil-Guillen  VF  et al.  Screening for sight threatening diabetic retinopathy using non-mydriatic retinal camera in a primary care setting: to dilate or not to dilate? Int J Clin Pract 2009;63 (3) 433- 438
PubMed Link to Article
Schmid  KLSwann  PGPedersen  CSchmid  LM The detection of diabetic retinopathy by Australian optometrists. Clin Exp Optom 2002;85 (4) 221- 228
PubMed Link to Article
Neubauer  ASRothschuh  AUlbig  MWBlum  M Digital fundus image grading with the non-mydriatic Visucam(PRO NM) versus the FF450(plus) camera in diabetic retinopathy. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 2008;86 (2) 177- 182
Link to Article
Siu  SCKo  TCWong  KWChan  WN Effectiveness of non-mydriatic retinal photography and direct ophthalmoscopy in detecting diabetic retinopathy. Hong Kong Med J 1998;4 (4) 367- 370
PubMed
Verma  LPrakash  GTewari  HKGupta  SKMurthy  GVSharma  N Screening for diabetic retinopathy by non-ophthalmologists: an effective public health tool. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2003;81 (4) 373- 377
PubMed Link to Article
Reenders  Kde Nobel  Evan den Hoogen  Hvan Weel  C Screening for diabetic retinopathy by general practitioners. Scand J Prim Health Care 1992;10 (4) 306- 309
PubMed Link to Article
National Health and Medical Research Council, Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of Diabetic Retinopathy.  Canberra, Australia Commonwealth Dept of Health and Family Services1997;
American Academy of Ophthalmology Retina Panel, Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines: Diabetic Retinopathy.  San Francisco, CA American Academy of Ophthalmology2008;
Javitt  JCCanner  JKFrank  RGSteinwachs  DMSommer  A Detecting and treating retinopathy in patients with type I diabetes mellitus: a health policy model. Ophthalmology 1990;97 (4) 483- 495
PubMed Link to Article
American Academy of Ophthalmology,International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Disease Severity Scale. http://www.icoph.org/pdf/Diabetic-Retinopathy-Detail.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2010

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 12

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles