The British journal of ophthalmology · 2018
Non-mydriatic ultrawide field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy compared with dilated fundal examination for assessment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema in Chinese individuals with diabetes mellitus.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Szeto Simon K H, Wong Raymond, Lok Jerry, Tang Fangyao, Sun Zihan, Tso Tiffany, Lam Thomas C H, Tham Clement C, Ng Danny S, Cheung Carol Y
Аннотация
AIMS: To evaluate the performance of ultrawide field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (UWF-SLO) for assessing diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular oedema (DME) in a Chinese population, compared with clinical examination.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. A series of 322 eyes from 164 patients with DM were included. Each patient underwent both dilated fundal examination with DR and DME grading by retina specialist and non-mydriatic 200° UWF-SLO (Daytona, Optos, Dunfermline, UK). The severity of DR and DME from UWF-SLO images was further graded by ophthalmologists, according to both international clinical DR and DME disease severity scales and the standard 7-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale. Any DR, DME and vision-threatening DR (VTDR) were treated as endpoints for this study.
RESULTS: 23 out of 322 images (7.14%), including all four cases with proliferative DR on clinical examinations, were determined as ungradable. When the international scale was used for grading UWF-SLO images, the sensitivity of any DR, DME and VTDR was 67.7%, 67.4% and 72.6%, respectively; the specificity of any DR, DME and VTDR was 97.8%, 97.3% and 97.8%, respectively. The agreement with clinical grading in picking up any DR, DME and VTDR was substantial, with κ-values of 0.634, 0.694 and 0.707, respectively. The performance of UWF-SLO was shown to be lower when ETDRS scale was used for grading the images.
CONCLUSION: The performance of non-mydriatic UWF-SLO is comparable in identifying DR with that of clinical examination in a Chinese cohort. However, whether UWF-SLO can be considered as tool for screening DR is still undetermined.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. A series of 322 eyes from 164 patients with DM were included. Each patient underwent both dilated fundal examination with DR and DME grading by retina specialist and non-mydriatic 200° UWF-SLO (Daytona, Optos, Dunfermline, UK). The severity of DR and DME from UWF-SLO images was further graded by ophthalmologists, according to both international clinical DR and DME disease severity scales and the standard 7-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale. Any DR, DME and vision-threatening DR (VTDR) were treated as endpoints for this study.
RESULTS: 23 out of 322 images (7.14%), including all four cases with proliferative DR on clinical examinations, were determined as ungradable. When the international scale was used for grading UWF-SLO images, the sensitivity of any DR, DME and VTDR was 67.7%, 67.4% and 72.6%, respectively; the specificity of any DR, DME and VTDR was 97.8%, 97.3% and 97.8%, respectively. The agreement with clinical grading in picking up any DR, DME and VTDR was substantial, with κ-values of 0.634, 0.694 and 0.707, respectively. The performance of UWF-SLO was shown to be lower when ETDRS scale was used for grading the images.
CONCLUSION: The performance of non-mydriatic UWF-SLO is comparable in identifying DR with that of clinical examination in a Chinese cohort. However, whether UWF-SLO can be considered as tool for screening DR is still undetermined.