Abstract
Background: Teleophthalmology is an evidence-based method for diabetic eye screening. It is unclear whether the type of eye care provider performing teleophthalmology interpretation produces significant variability.Introduction: We assessed grading variability between an optometrist, general ophthalmologist, and retinal specialist using images from an urban, diabetic retinopathy teleophthalmology program.Methods: Three readers evaluated digital retinal images in 100 cases (178 eyes from 90 patients with type 2 diabetes). Fisher's exact test, percent agreement, and the observed proportion of positive (Ppos) or negative agreement (Pneg) were used to assess variability.Results: Among cases deemed gradable by all three readers (n = 65), there was substantial agreement on absence of any retinopathy (88% ± 4.6%, Pneg = 0.91–0.95), presence of moderate nonproliferative or worse retinopathy (87% ± 3.9%, Ppos = 0.67–1.00), and presence of macular edema (99% ± 0.9%, Ppos = 0.67–1.00). There was limited agreement regarding presence of referable nondiabetic eye pathology (61% ± 11%, Ppos = 0.21–0.59) and early, nonroutine referral for a follow-up clinical eye exam (66% ± 8.1%, Ppos = 0.19–0.54). Among all cases (n = 100), there was acceptable agreement regarding which had gradable images (77% ± 5.0%, Ppos = 0.50–0.90).Discussion: Inclusion of multiple types of eye care providers as teleophthalmology readers is unlikely to produce significant variability in the assessment of diabetic retinopathy among high-quality images. Greater variability was found regarding image gradability, nondiabetic eye pathology, and recommended clinical referral times.Conclusions: Our results suggest that more extensive training and uniform referral standards are needed to improve consensus on image gradability, referable nondiabetic eye pathology, and recommended clinical referral times.
Highlights
A n estimated 29.1 million American adults have diabetes mellitus and among them, approximately one quarter have diabetic retinopathy.[1]
The frequency of cases with images considered ungradable for diabetic retinopathy was variable—27% by the general ophthal
To assess inter-reader variability in diabetic retinopathy evaluation, we examined the subset of teleophthalmology cases (n = 65) with high-quality images considered gradable for retinopathy by all three readers (Table 3)
Summary
A n estimated 29.1 million American adults have diabetes mellitus and among them, approximately one quarter have diabetic retinopathy.[1]. Teleophthalmology is an evidence-based method for diabetic eye screening It is unclear whether the type of eye care provider performing teleophthalmology interpretation produces significant variability. There was limited agreement regarding presence of referable nondiabetic eye pathology (61% – 11%, Ppos = 0.21– 0.59) and early, nonroutine referral for a follow-up clinical eye exam (66% – 8.1%, Ppos = 0.19–0.54). Discussion: Inclusion of multiple types of eye care providers as teleophthalmology readers is unlikely to produce significant variability in the assessment of diabetic retinopathy among highquality images. Greater variability was found regarding image gradability, nondiabetic eye pathology, and recommended clinical referral times. Conclusions: Our results suggest that more extensive training and uniform referral standards are needed to improve consensus on image gradability, referable nondiabetic eye pathology, and recommended clinical referral times
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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
