Abstract

To compare the severity level of diabetic retinopathy obtained when assessed from two versus only one 60 degrees photographic field using colour transparencies and red-free, black-and-white photographs. To compare the areal coverage of these two photographic strategies to that of seven-field 30 degrees photography. Two ophthalmologists graded photographs of 74 eyes of 74 type I and II diabetes patients. Inter-method agreement was expressed in percentages and using kappa statistics and scatter-diagrams. The comparison of the approximate photographic areal coverage was done from diagrams using planimetry. The severity level of retinopathy when judged from two photographic fields was more severe in 13.5% (Grader 1) and in 16.2% (Grader 2) from colour transparencies and in 13.5% (Grader 1) and in 14.9% (Grader 2) from red-free black-and-white prints, as compared to assessments from only one field. Kappa values (0.84-0.86) for inter-method agreement for five pooled retinopathy levels revealed good agreement. Neither grader missed retinopathy requiring clinical assessment or treatment (levels > or = 47) when minimal retinopathy (levels 14-20) was detected using only one 60 degrees colour slide or red-free photograph. A second optic disc-centred field provided valuable additional information when more severe retinopathy lesions (levels > or = 30) were detected in the macula-centred field. One macula-centred 60 degrees photograph covered 60% and two 60 degrees photographs 80% of the area covered by seven-field 30 degrees photography. Two-field 60 degrees photography covers areas left outside seven-field 30 degrees photography. We propose the use of one macula-centred 60 degrees photograph when screening for the first lesions of diabetic retinopathy. After they have been found two-field 60 degrees photography is recommended.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.