We aim to evaluate a non-mydriatic retinal camera as a safe and efficacious screening tool, for diabetic retinopathy, in diabetes centers.

Materials and Methods: 221 consecutive patients attending a Diabetes Center submitted to retinal photographs using a non-mydriatic camera. Patients were included if they had not had previous laser therapy and if they had a formal ophthalmologic consultation within 6 months of the photography Four endocrinologists reviewed the retinal photographs and recommended an interval (urgent referral, early referral, non-referral) for ophthalmologic assessment. Endocrinologists' grades were compared against the gold standard of ophthalmological findings. The endocrinologists were privy only to the patient's age, type and duration of diabetes mellitus.

Results: Twenty-seven cases were deemed as requiring early referral by the ophthalmologists.The endocrinologists agreed with ophthalmologist referral times in 27, 26, 23 and 27 cases respectively.Two cases requiring urgent referral according to the ophthalmologists were also judged as requiring urgent referral by all endocrinologists.A mean sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 88.5%-100%) was attained.

Conclusions: The use of a non-mydriatic camera to determine need for ophthalmologic referral was found to be safe and efficacious, with no serious delays in referral noted. On average this tool can safely defer 53.5% of routine ophthalmologic referrals without any risk to the patient's eyesight.

"/> We aim to evaluate a non-mydriatic retinal camera as a safe and efficacious screening tool, for diabetic retinopathy, in diabetes centers.

Materials and Methods: 221 consecutive patients attending a Diabetes Center submitted to retinal photographs using a non-mydriatic camera. Patients were included if they had not had previous laser therapy and if they had a formal ophthalmologic consultation within 6 months of the photography Four endocrinologists reviewed the retinal photographs and recommended an interval (urgent referral, early referral, non-referral) for ophthalmologic assessment. Endocrinologists' grades were compared against the gold standard of ophthalmological findings. The endocrinologists were privy only to the patient's age, type and duration of diabetes mellitus.

Results: Twenty-seven cases were deemed as requiring early referral by the ophthalmologists.The endocrinologists agreed with ophthalmologist referral times in 27, 26, 23 and 27 cases respectively.Two cases requiring urgent referral according to the ophthalmologists were also judged as requiring urgent referral by all endocrinologists.A mean sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 88.5%-100%) was attained.

Conclusions: The use of a non-mydriatic camera to determine need for ophthalmologic referral was found to be safe and efficacious, with no serious delays in referral noted. On average this tool can safely defer 53.5% of routine ophthalmologic referrals without any risk to the patient's eyesight.

"/>

The Clinical Utility of a Non-Mydriatic Retinal Camera in a Diabetes Clinic

AUTHORS

K Wesley Johns 1 , J Singer 1 , S Gill 1 , S Kreisman 1 , R Mario Mase 1 , B Antoinette 1 , M Pottinger 1 , HD Tildesley 2 , *

1 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada

2 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, [email protected], Canada

How to Cite: Johns K, Singer J, Gill S, Kreisman S, Mase R, et al. The Clinical Utility of a Non-Mydriatic Retinal Camera in a Diabetes Clinic , Int J Endocrinol Metab. Online ahead of Print ; 3(2):74-79.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism: 3 (2); 74-79
Article Type: Original Article
Received: January 1, 2005
Accepted: May 19, 2005
READ FULL TEXT

Abstract

We aim to evaluate a non-mydriatic retinal camera as a safe and efficacious screening tool, for diabetic retinopathy, in diabetes centers.

Materials and Methods: 221 consecutive patients attending a Diabetes Center submitted to retinal photographs using a non-mydriatic camera. Patients were included if they had not had previous laser therapy and if they had a formal ophthalmologic consultation within 6 months of the photography Four endocrinologists reviewed the retinal photographs and recommended an interval (urgent referral, early referral, non-referral) for ophthalmologic assessment. Endocrinologists' grades were compared against the gold standard of ophthalmological findings. The endocrinologists were privy only to the patient's age, type and duration of diabetes mellitus.

Results: Twenty-seven cases were deemed as requiring early referral by the ophthalmologists.The endocrinologists agreed with ophthalmologist referral times in 27, 26, 23 and 27 cases respectively.Two cases requiring urgent referral according to the ophthalmologists were also judged as requiring urgent referral by all endocrinologists.A mean sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 88.5%-100%) was attained.

Conclusions: The use of a non-mydriatic camera to determine need for ophthalmologic referral was found to be safe and efficacious, with no serious delays in referral noted. On average this tool can safely defer 53.5% of routine ophthalmologic referrals without any risk to the patient's eyesight.

Full Text

Full text is available in PDF

© 0, International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
COMMENTS

LEAVE A COMMENT HERE: