Liesenfeld B, Kohner E, Piehlmeier W, Kluthe S, Aldington S, Porta M, Bek T, Obermaier M, Mayer H, Mann G, Holle R, Hepp K D
Third Department of Medicine, Bogenhausen Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Diabetes Care. 2000 Mar;23(3):345-8. doi: 10.2337/diacare.23.3.345.
The importance of screening for diabetic retinopathy has been established, but the best method for screening has not yet been determined. We report on a trial of assessment of digital photographs by telemedicine compared with standard retinal photographs of the same fields and clinical examination by ophthalmologists.
A total of 129 diabetic inpatients were screened for diabetic retinopathy by slit-lamp biomicroscopy performed by an ophthalmologist and by two-field 50 degrees non-stereo digital fundus photographs assessed by six screening centers that received the images by electronic mail. Conventional 35-mm transparencies of the same fields as the digital photographs were assessed by a retinal specialist and served as the reference method for detection of diabetic retinopathy. Slit-lamp biomicroscopy was the reference method for the detection of macular edema.
The prevalence of any form of diabetic retinopathy was 30% (n = 35); of sight-threatening retinopathy including macular edema, the prevalence was 6% (n = 7). The assessment of digital images by the six screening centers resulted in a median sensitivity of 85% and a median specificity of 90% for the detection of moderate nonproliferative or sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Clinically significant macular edema (n = 4) was correctly identified in 15 of the 24 grading reports. An additional seven reports referred the patients for further investigation because of concurrent diabetic retinopathy.
Telescreening for diabetic retinopathy by an assessment of two-field 50 degrees non-stereo digital images is a valid screening method. Although detection of clinically significant macular edema using biomicroscopy is superior to digital or standard non-stereo photographs, only few patients with sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy are missed.
糖尿病视网膜病变筛查的重要性已得到确立,但最佳筛查方法尚未确定。我们报告了一项远程医疗评估数字照片与相同视野的标准视网膜照片及眼科医生临床检查相比较的试验。
共有129例糖尿病住院患者接受了糖尿病视网膜病变筛查,其中眼科医生通过裂隙灯生物显微镜检查进行筛查,6个筛查中心通过电子邮件接收图像,对50度非立体双眼眼底照片进行双视野评估。视网膜专科医生对与数字照片相同视野的传统35毫米幻灯片进行评估,并将其作为检测糖尿病视网膜病变的参考方法。裂隙灯生物显微镜检查是检测黄斑水肿的参考方法。
任何形式的糖尿病视网膜病变患病率为30%(n = 35);包括黄斑水肿在内的威胁视力的视网膜病变患病率为6%(n = 7)。6个筛查中心对数字图像的评估结果显示,检测中度非增殖性或威胁视力的糖尿病视网膜病变的中位敏感性为85%,中位特异性为90%。在24份分级报告中,有15份正确识别出了具有临床意义的黄斑水肿(n = 4)。另外7份报告因患者同时患有糖尿病视网膜病变而建议其进一步检查。
通过评估50度非立体双视野数字图像进行糖尿病视网膜病变的远程筛查是一种有效的筛查方法。虽然使用生物显微镜检测具有临床意义的黄斑水肿优于数字或标准非立体照片,但仅有少数威胁视力的糖尿病视网膜病变患者被漏诊。