2视场和5视场手持式视网膜成像在社区糖尿病视网膜病变筛查中的比较。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ophthalmologica Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1159/000530903
Lizzie Anne C Aquino, Recivall P Salongcay, Glenn P Alog, Kaye B Locaylocay, Aileen V Saunar, Tunde Peto, Paolo S Silva
{"title":"2视场和5视场手持式视网膜成像在社区糖尿病视网膜病变筛查中的比较。","authors":"Lizzie Anne C Aquino, Recivall P Salongcay, Glenn P Alog, Kaye B Locaylocay, Aileen V Saunar, Tunde Peto, Paolo S Silva","doi":"10.1159/000530903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare 2-field (2F) and 5-field (5F) mydriatic handheld retinal imaging for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity in a community-based DR screening program (DRSP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective, cross-sectional diagnostic study, evaluating images of 805 eyes from 407 consecutive patients with diabetes acquired from a community-based DRSP. Mydriatic standardized 5F imaging (macula, disc, superior, inferior, temporal) with handheld retinal camera was performed. 2F (disc, macula), and 5F images were independently assessed using the International DR classification at a centralized reading center. Simple (K) and weighted (Kw) kappa statistics were calculated for DR. Sensitivity and specificity for referable DR ([refDR] moderate nonproliferative DR [NPDR] or worse) and vision-threatening DR ([vtDR] severe NPDR or worse) for 2F compared to 5F imaging were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Distribution of DR severity by 2F/5F images (%): no DR 66.0/61.7, mild NPDR 10.7/14.4, moderate NPDR 7.9/8.1, severe NPDR 3.3/5.6, proliferative DR 5.6/4.6, ungradable 6.5/5.6. Exact agreement of DR grading between 2F and 5F was 81.7%, within 1-step 97.1% (K = 0.64, Kw = 0.78). Sensitivity/specificity for 2F compared 5F was refDR 0.80/0.97, vtDR 0.73/0.98. The ungradable images rate with 2F was 16.1% higher than with 5F (6.5 vs. 5.6%, p &lt; 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mydriatic 2F and 5F handheld imaging have substantial agreement in assessing severity of DR. However, the use of mydriatic 2F handheld imaging only meets the minimum standards for sensitivity and specificity for refDR but not for vtDR. When using handheld cameras, the addition of peripheral fields in 5F imaging further refines the referral approach by decreasing ungradable rate and increasing sensitivity for vtDR.</p>","PeriodicalId":19595,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmologica","volume":" ","pages":"203-208"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of 2-Field and 5-Field Mydriatic Handheld Retinal Imaging in a Community-Based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program.\",\"authors\":\"Lizzie Anne C Aquino, Recivall P Salongcay, Glenn P Alog, Kaye B Locaylocay, Aileen V Saunar, Tunde Peto, Paolo S Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000530903\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare 2-field (2F) and 5-field (5F) mydriatic handheld retinal imaging for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity in a community-based DR screening program (DRSP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective, cross-sectional diagnostic study, evaluating images of 805 eyes from 407 consecutive patients with diabetes acquired from a community-based DRSP. Mydriatic standardized 5F imaging (macula, disc, superior, inferior, temporal) with handheld retinal camera was performed. 2F (disc, macula), and 5F images were independently assessed using the International DR classification at a centralized reading center. Simple (K) and weighted (Kw) kappa statistics were calculated for DR. Sensitivity and specificity for referable DR ([refDR] moderate nonproliferative DR [NPDR] or worse) and vision-threatening DR ([vtDR] severe NPDR or worse) for 2F compared to 5F imaging were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Distribution of DR severity by 2F/5F images (%): no DR 66.0/61.7, mild NPDR 10.7/14.4, moderate NPDR 7.9/8.1, severe NPDR 3.3/5.6, proliferative DR 5.6/4.6, ungradable 6.5/5.6. Exact agreement of DR grading between 2F and 5F was 81.7%, within 1-step 97.1% (K = 0.64, Kw = 0.78). Sensitivity/specificity for 2F compared 5F was refDR 0.80/0.97, vtDR 0.73/0.98. The ungradable images rate with 2F was 16.1% higher than with 5F (6.5 vs. 5.6%, p &lt; 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mydriatic 2F and 5F handheld imaging have substantial agreement in assessing severity of DR. However, the use of mydriatic 2F handheld imaging only meets the minimum standards for sensitivity and specificity for refDR but not for vtDR. When using handheld cameras, the addition of peripheral fields in 5F imaging further refines the referral approach by decreasing ungradable rate and increasing sensitivity for vtDR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"203-208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000530903\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000530903","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较2视野(2F)和5视野(5F)手持式视网膜成像在社区DR筛查项目(DRSP)中评估糖尿病视网膜病变(DR)严重程度的效果。方法:这是一项前瞻性,横断面诊断研究,评估407例连续糖尿病患者从社区DRSP获得的805只眼睛的图像。采用手持式视网膜相机对黄斑、椎间盘、上、下、颞部进行散瞳标准化5F成像。2F(椎间盘、黄斑)和5F图像在集中阅读中心使用国际DR分类独立评估。计算DR的简单(K)和加权(Kw) kappa统计量。计算可参考DR ([refDR]中度非增殖性DR [NPDR]或更差)和视力威胁DR ([vtDR]严重NPDR或更差)在2F与5F成像中的敏感性和特异性。结果:2F/5F影像DR严重程度分布(%):无DR 66.0/61.7,轻度NPDR 10.7/14.4,中度NPDR 7.9/8.1,重度NPDR 3.3/5.6,增殖性DR 5.6/4.6,不可分级6.5/5.6。2F和5F之间DR分级的准确一致性为81.7%,在1步内为97.1% (K = 0.64, Kw = 0.78)。与5F相比,2F的敏感性/特异性为refDR 0.80/0.97, vtDR 0.73/0.98。2F的不可分级图像率比5F高16.1%(6.5比5.6%,p <0.001)。结论:Mydriatic 2F和5F手持式成像在评估dr的严重程度上有很大的一致性。然而,使用Mydriatic 2F手持式成像仅满足refDR的灵敏度和特异性的最低标准,而不满足vtDR。当使用手持相机时,在5F成像中增加外围视场,通过降低不可分级率和提高vtDR的灵敏度,进一步改进了转诊方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of 2-Field and 5-Field Mydriatic Handheld Retinal Imaging in a Community-Based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare 2-field (2F) and 5-field (5F) mydriatic handheld retinal imaging for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity in a community-based DR screening program (DRSP).

Methods: This was a prospective, cross-sectional diagnostic study, evaluating images of 805 eyes from 407 consecutive patients with diabetes acquired from a community-based DRSP. Mydriatic standardized 5F imaging (macula, disc, superior, inferior, temporal) with handheld retinal camera was performed. 2F (disc, macula), and 5F images were independently assessed using the International DR classification at a centralized reading center. Simple (K) and weighted (Kw) kappa statistics were calculated for DR. Sensitivity and specificity for referable DR ([refDR] moderate nonproliferative DR [NPDR] or worse) and vision-threatening DR ([vtDR] severe NPDR or worse) for 2F compared to 5F imaging were calculated.

Results: Distribution of DR severity by 2F/5F images (%): no DR 66.0/61.7, mild NPDR 10.7/14.4, moderate NPDR 7.9/8.1, severe NPDR 3.3/5.6, proliferative DR 5.6/4.6, ungradable 6.5/5.6. Exact agreement of DR grading between 2F and 5F was 81.7%, within 1-step 97.1% (K = 0.64, Kw = 0.78). Sensitivity/specificity for 2F compared 5F was refDR 0.80/0.97, vtDR 0.73/0.98. The ungradable images rate with 2F was 16.1% higher than with 5F (6.5 vs. 5.6%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Mydriatic 2F and 5F handheld imaging have substantial agreement in assessing severity of DR. However, the use of mydriatic 2F handheld imaging only meets the minimum standards for sensitivity and specificity for refDR but not for vtDR. When using handheld cameras, the addition of peripheral fields in 5F imaging further refines the referral approach by decreasing ungradable rate and increasing sensitivity for vtDR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmologica
Ophthalmologica 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
39
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Published since 1899, ''Ophthalmologica'' has become a frequently cited guide to international work in clinical and experimental ophthalmology. It contains a selection of patient-oriented contributions covering the etiology of eye diseases, diagnostic techniques, and advances in medical and surgical treatment. Straightforward, factual reporting provides both interesting and useful reading. In addition to original papers, ''Ophthalmologica'' features regularly timely reviews in an effort to keep the reader well informed and updated. The large international circulation of this journal reflects its importance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信