BMC ophthalmology · 2023
Prevalence and associated factors of diabetic retinopathy among people with diabetes screened using fundus photography at a community diabetic retinopathy screening program in Nepal.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Thapa Raba, Sharma Sanjita, Pradhan Eli, Duwal Sushma, Poudel Manish, Shrestha Krishna Gopal, Paudyal Govinda Prasad
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the prevalence and associated factors of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and vision threatening DR (VTDR) among people with diabetes screened using fundus photography in Nepal.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study among people with diabetes presented for DR screening using fundus photography from 2013 to 2019. Detailed demographics, duration of diabetes, medical history, visual acuity, and grading of DR on fundus photography were analyzed. Fundus camera used in the study were;Topcon digital fundus camera 900 CXR and digital portable fundus cameras (Nidek-10 portable non-mydriatric fundus camera; Versacam & Trade & Alpha, France), and a Zeiss portable fundus camera (Zeiss Visucout 100). Macula centred and disc centred 45 degree two images were taken from each eye. Pupil were dilated in cases where there was media haze in un-dilated cases. DR was graded using early treatment diabetic retinopathy study criteria. The images were graded by fellowship trained retina specialist. DR prevalence included any DR changes in one or both eyes.
RESULTS: Total of 25,196 patients with diabetes were enrolled. Mean age was 54.2 years with Standard Deviation (S.D):12.9 years, ranging from 6 years to 97 years. Type 1 and type 2 diabetes comprised of 451 people (1.79%) and 24,747 (98.21%) respectively. Overall, 1.8% of the images were un-gradable. DR prevalence was 19.3% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 18.8 - 19.7%). DR prevalence in type 1 and type 2 diabetes was 15.5% (95% CI: 12.5 - 18.6%) and 19.3% (CI: 18.8 - 19.8%) respectively. Clinically significant macular edema (CSME) was found in 5.9% (95% CI: 5.6-6.2%) and VTDR in 7.9% (95% CI: 7.7-8.3%). In multivariate analysis, our study revealed strong evidence to suggest that there is meaningful association between DR and VTDR with duration of diabetes, diabetic foot, diabetic neuropathy, agriculture occupation, those under oral hypoglycaemic agents or insulin or both as compared to those under diet only, and presenting visual acuity > 0.3LogMAR.
CONCLUSION: Prevalence and associated factors for DR and VTDR were similar to other DR screening programs in the region. Emphasis on wider coverage of DR screening could help for timely detection and treatment of STDR to avoid irreversible blindness.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study among people with diabetes presented for DR screening using fundus photography from 2013 to 2019. Detailed demographics, duration of diabetes, medical history, visual acuity, and grading of DR on fundus photography were analyzed. Fundus camera used in the study were;Topcon digital fundus camera 900 CXR and digital portable fundus cameras (Nidek-10 portable non-mydriatric fundus camera; Versacam & Trade & Alpha, France), and a Zeiss portable fundus camera (Zeiss Visucout 100). Macula centred and disc centred 45 degree two images were taken from each eye. Pupil were dilated in cases where there was media haze in un-dilated cases. DR was graded using early treatment diabetic retinopathy study criteria. The images were graded by fellowship trained retina specialist. DR prevalence included any DR changes in one or both eyes.
RESULTS: Total of 25,196 patients with diabetes were enrolled. Mean age was 54.2 years with Standard Deviation (S.D):12.9 years, ranging from 6 years to 97 years. Type 1 and type 2 diabetes comprised of 451 people (1.79%) and 24,747 (98.21%) respectively. Overall, 1.8% of the images were un-gradable. DR prevalence was 19.3% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 18.8 - 19.7%). DR prevalence in type 1 and type 2 diabetes was 15.5% (95% CI: 12.5 - 18.6%) and 19.3% (CI: 18.8 - 19.8%) respectively. Clinically significant macular edema (CSME) was found in 5.9% (95% CI: 5.6-6.2%) and VTDR in 7.9% (95% CI: 7.7-8.3%). In multivariate analysis, our study revealed strong evidence to suggest that there is meaningful association between DR and VTDR with duration of diabetes, diabetic foot, diabetic neuropathy, agriculture occupation, those under oral hypoglycaemic agents or insulin or both as compared to those under diet only, and presenting visual acuity > 0.3LogMAR.
CONCLUSION: Prevalence and associated factors for DR and VTDR were similar to other DR screening programs in the region. Emphasis on wider coverage of DR screening could help for timely detection and treatment of STDR to avoid irreversible blindness.