Loading…

The value of digital imaging in diabetic retinopathy

To assess the performance of digital imaging, compared with other modalities, in screening for and monitoring the development of diabetic retinopathy. All imaging was acquired at a hospital assessment clinic. Subsequently, study optometrists examined the patients in their own premises. A subset of p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) England), 2003, Vol.7 (30), p.1-119
Main Authors: Sharp, P F, Olson, J, Strachan, F, Hipwell, J, Ludbrook, A, O'Donnell, M, Wallace, S, Goatman, K, Grant, A, Waugh, N, McHardy, K, Forrester, J V
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4310-fe05deaae9514ae76528b7eaa7334782c0defeecef0e453312d81835e9c01e783
cites
container_end_page 119
container_issue 30
container_start_page 1
container_title Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
container_volume 7
creator Sharp, P F
Olson, J
Strachan, F
Hipwell, J
Ludbrook, A
O'Donnell, M
Wallace, S
Goatman, K
Grant, A
Waugh, N
McHardy, K
Forrester, J V
description To assess the performance of digital imaging, compared with other modalities, in screening for and monitoring the development of diabetic retinopathy. All imaging was acquired at a hospital assessment clinic. Subsequently, study optometrists examined the patients in their own premises. A subset of patients also had fluorescein angiography performed every 6 months. Research clinic at the hospital eye clinic and optometrists' own premises. Study comprised 103 patients who had type 1 diabetes mellitus, 481 had type 2 diabetes mellitus and two had secondary diabetes mellitus; 157 (26.8%) had some form of retinopathy ('any') and 58 (9.9%) had referable retinopathy. A repeat assessment was carried out of all patients 1 year after their initial assessment. Patients who had more severe forms of retinopathy were monitored more frequently for evidence of progression. Detection of retinopathy, progression of retinopathy and determination of when treatment is required. Manual grading of 35-mm colour slides produced the highest sensitivity and specificity figures, with optometrist examination recording most false negatives. Manual and automated analysis of digital images had intermediate sensitivity. Both manual grading of 35-mm colour slides and digital images gave sensitivities of over 90% with few false positives. Digital imaging produced 50% fewer ungradable images than colour slides. This part of the study was limited as patients with the more severe levels of retinopathy opted for treatment. There was an increase in the number of microaneurysms in those patients who developed from mild to moderate. There was no difference between the turnover rate of either new or regressed microaneurysms for patients with mild or with sight-threatening retinopathy. It was not possible in this study to ascertain whether digital imaging systems determine when treatment is warranted. In the context of a national screening programme for referable retinopathy, digital imaging is an effective method. In addition, technical failure rates are lower with digital imaging than conventional photography. Digital imaging is also a more sensitive technique than slit-lamp examination by optometrists. Automated grading can improve efficiency by correctly identifying just under half the population as having no retinopathy. Recommendations for future research include: investigating whether the nasal field is required for grading; a large screening programme is required to ascertain if automated gr
doi_str_mv 10.3310/hta7300
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_6293b5522ab746d5a92902df9d306da6</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_6293b5522ab746d5a92902df9d306da6</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>71339552</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4310-fe05deaae9514ae76528b7eaa7334782c0defeecef0e453312d81835e9c01e783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkFtLw0AQhRdRbK3iP5A86VN075t9lOKlUPClPi-T7CTdkiY1F8F_72qDvszA4fDNmUPINaP3QjD6sB3ACEpPyJxTqVNpuTwlcya0ThU32Yxc9P2OUsm0YudkxqSmUlo7J3KzxeQT6hGTtkx8qMIAdRL2UIWmSkITJchxCEXSxdm0Bxi2X5fkrIS6x6tpL8j789Nm-Zqu315Wy8d1WsgYKi2RKo8AaBWTgEYrnuUmCkYIaTJeUI8lYoElRaniH9xnLBMKbUEZmkwsyOrI9S3s3KGLsbov10Jwv0LbVQ66mK1Gp7kVuVKcQ26k9gost5T70npBtQcdWbdH1qFrP0bsB7cPfYF1DQ22Y-8ME8JGQDTeHY1F1_Z9h-XfYUbdT9luKjs6bybkmO_R__umdsU3Yph4EQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71339552</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The value of digital imaging in diabetic retinopathy</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Sharp, P F ; Olson, J ; Strachan, F ; Hipwell, J ; Ludbrook, A ; O'Donnell, M ; Wallace, S ; Goatman, K ; Grant, A ; Waugh, N ; McHardy, K ; Forrester, J V</creator><creatorcontrib>Sharp, P F ; Olson, J ; Strachan, F ; Hipwell, J ; Ludbrook, A ; O'Donnell, M ; Wallace, S ; Goatman, K ; Grant, A ; Waugh, N ; McHardy, K ; Forrester, J V</creatorcontrib><description>To assess the performance of digital imaging, compared with other modalities, in screening for and monitoring the development of diabetic retinopathy. All imaging was acquired at a hospital assessment clinic. Subsequently, study optometrists examined the patients in their own premises. A subset of patients also had fluorescein angiography performed every 6 months. Research clinic at the hospital eye clinic and optometrists' own premises. Study comprised 103 patients who had type 1 diabetes mellitus, 481 had type 2 diabetes mellitus and two had secondary diabetes mellitus; 157 (26.8%) had some form of retinopathy ('any') and 58 (9.9%) had referable retinopathy. A repeat assessment was carried out of all patients 1 year after their initial assessment. Patients who had more severe forms of retinopathy were monitored more frequently for evidence of progression. Detection of retinopathy, progression of retinopathy and determination of when treatment is required. Manual grading of 35-mm colour slides produced the highest sensitivity and specificity figures, with optometrist examination recording most false negatives. Manual and automated analysis of digital images had intermediate sensitivity. Both manual grading of 35-mm colour slides and digital images gave sensitivities of over 90% with few false positives. Digital imaging produced 50% fewer ungradable images than colour slides. This part of the study was limited as patients with the more severe levels of retinopathy opted for treatment. There was an increase in the number of microaneurysms in those patients who developed from mild to moderate. There was no difference between the turnover rate of either new or regressed microaneurysms for patients with mild or with sight-threatening retinopathy. It was not possible in this study to ascertain whether digital imaging systems determine when treatment is warranted. In the context of a national screening programme for referable retinopathy, digital imaging is an effective method. In addition, technical failure rates are lower with digital imaging than conventional photography. Digital imaging is also a more sensitive technique than slit-lamp examination by optometrists. Automated grading can improve efficiency by correctly identifying just under half the population as having no retinopathy. Recommendations for future research include: investigating whether the nasal field is required for grading; a large screening programme is required to ascertain if automated grading can safely perform as a first-level grader; if colour improves the performance of grading digital images; investigating methods to ensure effective uptake in a diabetic retinopathy screening programme.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1366-5278</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2046-4924</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1366-5278</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3310/hta7300</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14604499</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: NIHR Journals Library</publisher><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - complications ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - complications ; Diabetic Retinopathy - complications ; Diabetic Retinopathy - diagnostic imaging ; Diabetic Retinopathy - physiopathology ; Diabetic Retinopathy - therapy ; Disease Progression ; Health Services Research ; Humans ; Radiographic Image Enhancement - economics ; Risk Factors ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2003, Vol.7 (30), p.1-119</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4310-fe05deaae9514ae76528b7eaa7334782c0defeecef0e453312d81835e9c01e783</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14604499$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sharp, P F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olson, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strachan, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hipwell, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludbrook, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Donnell, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallace, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goatman, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grant, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waugh, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McHardy, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forrester, J V</creatorcontrib><title>The value of digital imaging in diabetic retinopathy</title><title>Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)</title><addtitle>Health Technol Assess</addtitle><description>To assess the performance of digital imaging, compared with other modalities, in screening for and monitoring the development of diabetic retinopathy. All imaging was acquired at a hospital assessment clinic. Subsequently, study optometrists examined the patients in their own premises. A subset of patients also had fluorescein angiography performed every 6 months. Research clinic at the hospital eye clinic and optometrists' own premises. Study comprised 103 patients who had type 1 diabetes mellitus, 481 had type 2 diabetes mellitus and two had secondary diabetes mellitus; 157 (26.8%) had some form of retinopathy ('any') and 58 (9.9%) had referable retinopathy. A repeat assessment was carried out of all patients 1 year after their initial assessment. Patients who had more severe forms of retinopathy were monitored more frequently for evidence of progression. Detection of retinopathy, progression of retinopathy and determination of when treatment is required. Manual grading of 35-mm colour slides produced the highest sensitivity and specificity figures, with optometrist examination recording most false negatives. Manual and automated analysis of digital images had intermediate sensitivity. Both manual grading of 35-mm colour slides and digital images gave sensitivities of over 90% with few false positives. Digital imaging produced 50% fewer ungradable images than colour slides. This part of the study was limited as patients with the more severe levels of retinopathy opted for treatment. There was an increase in the number of microaneurysms in those patients who developed from mild to moderate. There was no difference between the turnover rate of either new or regressed microaneurysms for patients with mild or with sight-threatening retinopathy. It was not possible in this study to ascertain whether digital imaging systems determine when treatment is warranted. In the context of a national screening programme for referable retinopathy, digital imaging is an effective method. In addition, technical failure rates are lower with digital imaging than conventional photography. Digital imaging is also a more sensitive technique than slit-lamp examination by optometrists. Automated grading can improve efficiency by correctly identifying just under half the population as having no retinopathy. Recommendations for future research include: investigating whether the nasal field is required for grading; a large screening programme is required to ascertain if automated grading can safely perform as a first-level grader; if colour improves the performance of grading digital images; investigating methods to ensure effective uptake in a diabetic retinopathy screening programme.</description><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - complications</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - complications</subject><subject>Diabetic Retinopathy - complications</subject><subject>Diabetic Retinopathy - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Diabetic Retinopathy - physiopathology</subject><subject>Diabetic Retinopathy - therapy</subject><subject>Disease Progression</subject><subject>Health Services Research</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Enhancement - economics</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>1366-5278</issn><issn>2046-4924</issn><issn>1366-5278</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkFtLw0AQhRdRbK3iP5A86VN075t9lOKlUPClPi-T7CTdkiY1F8F_72qDvszA4fDNmUPINaP3QjD6sB3ACEpPyJxTqVNpuTwlcya0ThU32Yxc9P2OUsm0YudkxqSmUlo7J3KzxeQT6hGTtkx8qMIAdRL2UIWmSkITJchxCEXSxdm0Bxi2X5fkrIS6x6tpL8j789Nm-Zqu315Wy8d1WsgYKi2RKo8AaBWTgEYrnuUmCkYIaTJeUI8lYoElRaniH9xnLBMKbUEZmkwsyOrI9S3s3KGLsbov10Jwv0LbVQ66mK1Gp7kVuVKcQ26k9gost5T70npBtQcdWbdH1qFrP0bsB7cPfYF1DQ22Y-8ME8JGQDTeHY1F1_Z9h-XfYUbdT9luKjs6bybkmO_R__umdsU3Yph4EQ</recordid><startdate>2003</startdate><enddate>2003</enddate><creator>Sharp, P F</creator><creator>Olson, J</creator><creator>Strachan, F</creator><creator>Hipwell, J</creator><creator>Ludbrook, A</creator><creator>O'Donnell, M</creator><creator>Wallace, S</creator><creator>Goatman, K</creator><creator>Grant, A</creator><creator>Waugh, N</creator><creator>McHardy, K</creator><creator>Forrester, J V</creator><general>NIHR Journals Library</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2003</creationdate><title>The value of digital imaging in diabetic retinopathy</title><author>Sharp, P F ; Olson, J ; Strachan, F ; Hipwell, J ; Ludbrook, A ; O'Donnell, M ; Wallace, S ; Goatman, K ; Grant, A ; Waugh, N ; McHardy, K ; Forrester, J V</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4310-fe05deaae9514ae76528b7eaa7334782c0defeecef0e453312d81835e9c01e783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - complications</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - complications</topic><topic>Diabetic Retinopathy - complications</topic><topic>Diabetic Retinopathy - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Diabetic Retinopathy - physiopathology</topic><topic>Diabetic Retinopathy - therapy</topic><topic>Disease Progression</topic><topic>Health Services Research</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Enhancement - economics</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sharp, P F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olson, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strachan, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hipwell, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludbrook, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Donnell, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallace, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goatman, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grant, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waugh, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McHardy, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forrester, J V</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sharp, P F</au><au>Olson, J</au><au>Strachan, F</au><au>Hipwell, J</au><au>Ludbrook, A</au><au>O'Donnell, M</au><au>Wallace, S</au><au>Goatman, K</au><au>Grant, A</au><au>Waugh, N</au><au>McHardy, K</au><au>Forrester, J V</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The value of digital imaging in diabetic retinopathy</atitle><jtitle>Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Health Technol Assess</addtitle><date>2003</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>30</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>119</epage><pages>1-119</pages><issn>1366-5278</issn><eissn>2046-4924</eissn><eissn>1366-5278</eissn><abstract>To assess the performance of digital imaging, compared with other modalities, in screening for and monitoring the development of diabetic retinopathy. All imaging was acquired at a hospital assessment clinic. Subsequently, study optometrists examined the patients in their own premises. A subset of patients also had fluorescein angiography performed every 6 months. Research clinic at the hospital eye clinic and optometrists' own premises. Study comprised 103 patients who had type 1 diabetes mellitus, 481 had type 2 diabetes mellitus and two had secondary diabetes mellitus; 157 (26.8%) had some form of retinopathy ('any') and 58 (9.9%) had referable retinopathy. A repeat assessment was carried out of all patients 1 year after their initial assessment. Patients who had more severe forms of retinopathy were monitored more frequently for evidence of progression. Detection of retinopathy, progression of retinopathy and determination of when treatment is required. Manual grading of 35-mm colour slides produced the highest sensitivity and specificity figures, with optometrist examination recording most false negatives. Manual and automated analysis of digital images had intermediate sensitivity. Both manual grading of 35-mm colour slides and digital images gave sensitivities of over 90% with few false positives. Digital imaging produced 50% fewer ungradable images than colour slides. This part of the study was limited as patients with the more severe levels of retinopathy opted for treatment. There was an increase in the number of microaneurysms in those patients who developed from mild to moderate. There was no difference between the turnover rate of either new or regressed microaneurysms for patients with mild or with sight-threatening retinopathy. It was not possible in this study to ascertain whether digital imaging systems determine when treatment is warranted. In the context of a national screening programme for referable retinopathy, digital imaging is an effective method. In addition, technical failure rates are lower with digital imaging than conventional photography. Digital imaging is also a more sensitive technique than slit-lamp examination by optometrists. Automated grading can improve efficiency by correctly identifying just under half the population as having no retinopathy. Recommendations for future research include: investigating whether the nasal field is required for grading; a large screening programme is required to ascertain if automated grading can safely perform as a first-level grader; if colour improves the performance of grading digital images; investigating methods to ensure effective uptake in a diabetic retinopathy screening programme.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>NIHR Journals Library</pub><pmid>14604499</pmid><doi>10.3310/hta7300</doi><tpages>119</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1366-5278
ispartof Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2003, Vol.7 (30), p.1-119
issn 1366-5278
2046-4924
1366-5278
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_6293b5522ab746d5a92902df9d306da6
source Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - complications
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - complications
Diabetic Retinopathy - complications
Diabetic Retinopathy - diagnostic imaging
Diabetic Retinopathy - physiopathology
Diabetic Retinopathy - therapy
Disease Progression
Health Services Research
Humans
Radiographic Image Enhancement - economics
Risk Factors
United Kingdom
title The value of digital imaging in diabetic retinopathy
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T05%3A43%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20value%20of%20digital%20imaging%20in%20diabetic%20retinopathy&rft.jtitle=Health%20technology%20assessment%20(Winchester,%20England)&rft.au=Sharp,%20P%20F&rft.date=2003&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=30&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=119&rft.pages=1-119&rft.issn=1366-5278&rft.eissn=2046-4924&rft_id=info:doi/10.3310/hta7300&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E71339552%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4310-fe05deaae9514ae76528b7eaa7334782c0defeecef0e453312d81835e9c01e783%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71339552&rft_id=info:pmid/14604499&rfr_iscdi=true