{"title":"社区护理中糖尿病视网膜病变的筛查和监测:单视野与多视野眼底摄影的有效性对比。","authors":"Xin He, Xinchen Deng, Zhong Lin, Liang Wen, Weihe Zhou, Xiang Xu, Shiqi Hu, Yuanbo Liang, Yu Wang, Jia Qu, Cong Ye","doi":"10.1097/IAE.0000000000004311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of single-field fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening and monitoring versus six-field imaging in community settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults aged ≥30 years with type 2 diabetes from 15 communities in Northeast China were recruited for this prospective cohort study (n=2006 at baseline and n=1456 at follow-up). Participants underwent both single-field and six-field digital fundus photography at baseline and follow-up visits (mean duration of 21.2±3.2 months). Photographs were graded using international standards. Agreement in DR severity grading, referral recommendations, and detection of DR progression were compared between single-field and six-field fundus photography.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Single-field grading showed substantial agreement with multi-field grading in classifying DR severity (81.9% identical at baseline, 80.6% at follow-up, Gwet's AC1 0.79 and 0.77). For referring eyes with moderate non-proliferative DR or worse, single-field grading had ∼70% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to six-field grading. Single-field grading identified 74.9% or 79.7% of eyes progressing or regressing by six-field grading, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-field fundus photography demonstrated reasonable effectiveness for DR screening and monitoring in a community setting, supporting its use for improving access to DR detection. However, reduced sensitivity compared to multi-field imaging should be acknowledged.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening and monitoring of diabetic retinopathy in community care: the effectiveness of single-field vs multi-field fundus photography.\",\"authors\":\"Xin He, Xinchen Deng, Zhong Lin, Liang Wen, Weihe Zhou, Xiang Xu, Shiqi Hu, Yuanbo Liang, Yu Wang, Jia Qu, Cong Ye\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/IAE.0000000000004311\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of single-field fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening and monitoring versus six-field imaging in community settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults aged ≥30 years with type 2 diabetes from 15 communities in Northeast China were recruited for this prospective cohort study (n=2006 at baseline and n=1456 at follow-up). Participants underwent both single-field and six-field digital fundus photography at baseline and follow-up visits (mean duration of 21.2±3.2 months). Photographs were graded using international standards. Agreement in DR severity grading, referral recommendations, and detection of DR progression were compared between single-field and six-field fundus photography.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Single-field grading showed substantial agreement with multi-field grading in classifying DR severity (81.9% identical at baseline, 80.6% at follow-up, Gwet's AC1 0.79 and 0.77). For referring eyes with moderate non-proliferative DR or worse, single-field grading had ∼70% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to six-field grading. Single-field grading identified 74.9% or 79.7% of eyes progressing or regressing by six-field grading, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-field fundus photography demonstrated reasonable effectiveness for DR screening and monitoring in a community setting, supporting its use for improving access to DR detection. However, reduced sensitivity compared to multi-field imaging should be acknowledged.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004311\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究旨在评估单视野眼底照相与六视野成像在社区糖尿病视网膜病变(DR)筛查和监测中的有效性:这项前瞻性队列研究招募了来自中国东北地区 15 个社区的年龄≥30 岁的 2 型糖尿病患者(基线人数为 2006 人,随访人数为 1456 人)。参与者在基线和随访期间(平均持续时间为 21.2±3.2 个月)接受了单视野和六视野数字眼底摄影。照片采用国际标准进行分级。比较了单视野和六视野眼底摄影在 DR 严重程度分级、转诊建议和 DR 进展检测方面的一致性:结果:在对 DR 严重程度进行分级时,单视野分级与多视野分级的一致性很高(基线时 81.9%,随访时 80.6%,Gwet's AC1 0.79 和 0.77)。对于中度非增殖性DR或更严重的转诊眼,与六视野分级相比,单视野分级的灵敏度为70%,特异性为100%。单视野分级分别鉴定出了74.9%或79.7%通过六视野分级进展或退化的眼睛:在社区环境中,单视野眼底照相法在DR筛查和监测方面显示出合理的有效性,支持将其用于提高DR检测的可及性。然而,与多视野成像相比,灵敏度有所降低,这一点应予以承认。
Screening and monitoring of diabetic retinopathy in community care: the effectiveness of single-field vs multi-field fundus photography.
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of single-field fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening and monitoring versus six-field imaging in community settings.
Methods: Adults aged ≥30 years with type 2 diabetes from 15 communities in Northeast China were recruited for this prospective cohort study (n=2006 at baseline and n=1456 at follow-up). Participants underwent both single-field and six-field digital fundus photography at baseline and follow-up visits (mean duration of 21.2±3.2 months). Photographs were graded using international standards. Agreement in DR severity grading, referral recommendations, and detection of DR progression were compared between single-field and six-field fundus photography.
Results: Single-field grading showed substantial agreement with multi-field grading in classifying DR severity (81.9% identical at baseline, 80.6% at follow-up, Gwet's AC1 0.79 and 0.77). For referring eyes with moderate non-proliferative DR or worse, single-field grading had ∼70% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to six-field grading. Single-field grading identified 74.9% or 79.7% of eyes progressing or regressing by six-field grading, respectively.
Conclusions: Single-field fundus photography demonstrated reasonable effectiveness for DR screening and monitoring in a community setting, supporting its use for improving access to DR detection. However, reduced sensitivity compared to multi-field imaging should be acknowledged.