Diagnostic test accuracy of diabetic retinopathy screening by physician graders using a hand-held non-mydriatic retinal camera at a tertiary level medical clinic.


Journal

BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Apr 2019
Historique:
received: 22 11 2018
accepted: 26 03 2019
entrez: 10 4 2019
pubmed: 10 4 2019
medline: 11 4 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The evidence on diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening utilising photographic studies by non-ophthalmologist personnel in low and middle-income country (LMIC) settings is scarce. We aimed to assess DTA of DR screening using a nonmydriatic hand-held digital camera by trained general physicians in a non-ophthalmic setting. This study is a validation of a screening intervention. We selected 700 people with diabetes (PwDM) > 18 years of age, not previously screened or treated for DR, presenting at a tertiary medical clinic in Sri Lanka. Two-field retinal imaging was used to capture fundus images before and after pupil dilatation, using a hand-held non-mydriatic (Visuscout 100®-Germany) digital retinal camera. The images were captured and graded by two trained, masked independent physician graders. The DTA of different levels of DR was assessed comparing physician's grading with a retinologist's clinical examination by mydriatic bio-microscopy, according to a locally adopted guideline. Seven hundred eligible PwDM were screened by physician graders. The mean age of participants was 60.8 years (SD ±10.08) and mean duration of DM was 9.9 years (SD ±8.09). Ungradable image proportion in non-mydriatic imaging was 43.4% (either eye-31.3%, both eyes 12.1%). This decreased to 12.8% (either eye-11.6%, both eyes-1.2%) following pupil dilatation. In comparison to detection of any level of DR, a referable level DR (moderate non-proliferative DR and levels above) showed a higher level of DTA. The sensitivity of the defined referable DR was 88.7% (95% CI 81.7-93.8%) for grader 1 (positive predictive value [PPV] 59.1%) and 92.5% (95% CI 86.4-96.5%) for grader 2 (PPV 68%), using mydriatic imaging, after including ungradable images as screen positives. The specificity was 94.9% (95% CI 93.6-96.0%) for grader 1 (negative predictive value [NPV] 99%) and 96.4% (95% CI 95.3-97.3%) for grader 2 (NPV 99.4%). The Physicians grading of images from a digital hand-held non-mydriatic camera at a medical clinic, with dilatation of pupil of those who have ungradable images, provides a valid modality to identify referable level of DR. This could be a feasible alternative modality to the existing opportunistic screening to improve the access and coverage. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47559703 . Date of Registration 18th March 2019, Retrospectively registered.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The evidence on diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening utilising photographic studies by non-ophthalmologist personnel in low and middle-income country (LMIC) settings is scarce. We aimed to assess DTA of DR screening using a nonmydriatic hand-held digital camera by trained general physicians in a non-ophthalmic setting.
METHODS METHODS
This study is a validation of a screening intervention. We selected 700 people with diabetes (PwDM) > 18 years of age, not previously screened or treated for DR, presenting at a tertiary medical clinic in Sri Lanka. Two-field retinal imaging was used to capture fundus images before and after pupil dilatation, using a hand-held non-mydriatic (Visuscout 100®-Germany) digital retinal camera. The images were captured and graded by two trained, masked independent physician graders. The DTA of different levels of DR was assessed comparing physician's grading with a retinologist's clinical examination by mydriatic bio-microscopy, according to a locally adopted guideline.
RESULTS RESULTS
Seven hundred eligible PwDM were screened by physician graders. The mean age of participants was 60.8 years (SD ±10.08) and mean duration of DM was 9.9 years (SD ±8.09). Ungradable image proportion in non-mydriatic imaging was 43.4% (either eye-31.3%, both eyes 12.1%). This decreased to 12.8% (either eye-11.6%, both eyes-1.2%) following pupil dilatation. In comparison to detection of any level of DR, a referable level DR (moderate non-proliferative DR and levels above) showed a higher level of DTA. The sensitivity of the defined referable DR was 88.7% (95% CI 81.7-93.8%) for grader 1 (positive predictive value [PPV] 59.1%) and 92.5% (95% CI 86.4-96.5%) for grader 2 (PPV 68%), using mydriatic imaging, after including ungradable images as screen positives. The specificity was 94.9% (95% CI 93.6-96.0%) for grader 1 (negative predictive value [NPV] 99%) and 96.4% (95% CI 95.3-97.3%) for grader 2 (NPV 99.4%).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The Physicians grading of images from a digital hand-held non-mydriatic camera at a medical clinic, with dilatation of pupil of those who have ungradable images, provides a valid modality to identify referable level of DR. This could be a feasible alternative modality to the existing opportunistic screening to improve the access and coverage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47559703 . Date of Registration 18th March 2019, Retrospectively registered.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30961576
doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1092-3
pii: 10.1186/s12886-019-1092-3
pmc: PMC6454614
doi:

Substances chimiques

Mydriatics 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

89

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, coordinated through the Commonwealth Eye Health Consortium - United Kingdom.
ID : ITRCRZC6812

Références

Can J Ophthalmol. 2003 Dec;38(7):569-74
pubmed: 14740798
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016 Apr 20;5(2):16
pubmed: 27134775
Eye (Lond). 2003 May;17(4):497-500
pubmed: 12802350
Int J Clin Pract. 2009 Mar;63(3):433-8
pubmed: 19222628
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Nov 09;53(12):7600-7
pubmed: 23049089
BMC Ophthalmol. 2017 Jun 13;17(1):89
pubmed: 28610611
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007 Jul-Aug;14(4):179-83
pubmed: 17896294
Telemed J. 2000 Summer;6(2):219-23
pubmed: 10957734
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2012 Sep-Oct;60(5):428-31
pubmed: 22944754
Ophthalmology. 1991 May;98(5 Suppl):786-806
pubmed: 2062513
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Apr;36(3):265-73
pubmed: 18412597
Trop Med Int Health. 2018 Apr;23(4):405-414
pubmed: 29430785
Diabet Med. 1998 Feb;15(2):170-5
pubmed: 9507921
Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2012 Apr-Jun;19(2):178-84
pubmed: 22623855
BMC Endocr Disord. 2014 Mar 04;14:20
pubmed: 24588941
Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jul;88(7):920-4
pubmed: 15205238
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug;62(8):851-6
pubmed: 25230960
Ceylon Med J. ;62(3):205-206
pubmed: 29082731
Diabetes Metab. 2008 Jun;34(3):290-3
pubmed: 18406188
Diabet Med. 2003 Jul;20(7):528-34
pubmed: 12823232
Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Oct;87(10):1258-63
pubmed: 14507762
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2004 Dec;82(6):666-72
pubmed: 15606461
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Jan;11(1):135-137
pubmed: 28264174
Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Oct 1;96(10):705-715
pubmed: 30455518
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Jan;11(1):128-134
pubmed: 27402242
J Med Assoc Thai. 2008 Sep;91(9):1397-403
pubmed: 18843870
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000 Apr;78(2):164-8
pubmed: 10794249
Acta Diabetol. 2017 Jun;54(6):515-525
pubmed: 28224275
JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 Dec 10;7(12):e10900
pubmed: 30530458
BMJ. 2000 Jun 17;320(7250):1627-31
pubmed: 10856062
Ophthalmologica. 2005 Sep-Oct;219(5):292-6
pubmed: 16123556
J R Soc Med. 2003 Jun;96(6):273-6
pubmed: 12782690
Arch Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul;129(7):930-5
pubmed: 21746983
Br J Ophthalmol. 2012 May;96(5):614-8
pubmed: 22133988
Ann Fam Med. 2008 Sep-Oct;6(5):428-34
pubmed: 18779547
Diabetes Care. 2005 Oct;28(10):2448-53
pubmed: 16186278
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Feb 01;10(2):282-94
pubmed: 26830491
Med J Aust. 2013 Feb 4;198(2):93-6
pubmed: 23373499
BMJ. 1995 Oct 28;311(7013):1131-5
pubmed: 7580708
Br J Ophthalmol. 2018 May;102(5):575-585
pubmed: 29545417
BMC Med. 2013 Jul 02;11:157
pubmed: 23819888
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009 Jan;11(1):45-50
pubmed: 19132855
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016 May;44(4):300-20
pubmed: 26991970
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;24(4):217-221
pubmed: 28658588
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008 Nov-Dec;56(6):489-94
pubmed: 18974520
Diabet Med. 2001 Mar;18(3):178-84
pubmed: 11318837

Auteurs

Mapa Mudiyanselage Prabhath Nishantha Piyasena (MMPN)

Clinical Research Department, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. Prabhath.piyasena@lshtm.ac.uk.

Jennifer L Y Yip (JLY)

Public Health Ophthalmology, International Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

David MacLeod (D)

Tropical Epidemiology Group, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Min Kim (M)

Tropical Epidemiology Group, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Venkata S Murthy Gudlavalleti (VSM)

Public Health for Eye Care and Disability, International Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH