Suppr超能文献

眼科医生与验光师在视盘评估方面的一致性:对青光眼联合管理的培训启示

Agreement between ophthalmologists and optometrists in optic disc assessment: training implications for glaucoma co-management.

作者信息

Harper R, Radi N, Reeves B C, Fenerty C, Spencer A F, Batterbury M

机构信息

Academic Department of Ophthalmology, Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, UK.

出版信息

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001 Jun;239(5):342-50. doi: 10.1007/s004170100272.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many studies have estimated observer variability for optic disc assessment among experts, but there are few data on agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists. The aim of this study is to report inter- and intraobserver agreement among optometrists and ophthalmologists in optic disc assessment and discuss the implications for glaucoma co-management.

METHODS

Twelve observers (six optometrists and six ophthalmologists) graded 48 stereo-pairs of optic disc photographs from 48 patients on two separate occasions. Observers graded the vertical C/D ratio, the narrowest rim width and the presence/absence of disc haemorrhage. Agreement was assessed by calculating the standard deviation (SD) of differences and the kappa statistic, within and between observers. Systematic differences in grading between and within individuals were described by calculating mean differences.

RESULTS

Intra-observer agreement is "substantial" and significantly better than inter-observer agreement for all disc features (P<0.0001). Intra-observer agreement is comparable for optometrists and ophthalmologists with regard to C/D ratio estimates. Although some optometrists show close agreement with ophthalmologists, overall agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists is significantly worse than agreement among ophthalmologists alone for vertical C/D ratio (P=0.002) and disc haemorrhage (P=0.02). There are fewer inter-observer mean differences that differ significantly from zero among ophthalmologists (7%) than among optometrists (67%; chi2=11.63, P<0.001) or between optometrists and ophthalmologists (69%; chi2=16.7, P<0.001). There is evidence of systematic under-reading of C/D ratios by less experienced optometrists.

CONCLUSION

Although individual optometrists can show good agreement with ophthalmologists on disc grading, the variation in individual performance indicates that training and accreditation in disc assessment is an essential prerequisite for participation by optometrists in glaucoma co-management.

摘要

背景

许多研究已经评估了专家之间对视盘评估的观察者变异性,但关于验光师和眼科医生之间一致性的数据较少。本研究的目的是报告验光师和眼科医生之间以及观察者内部在视盘评估方面的一致性,并讨论其对青光眼共同管理的意义。

方法

12名观察者(6名验光师和6名眼科医生)在两个不同的时间对48例患者的48对视盘立体照片进行分级。观察者对视盘垂直杯盘比、最窄边缘宽度以及视盘出血的有无进行分级。通过计算观察者内部和之间差异的标准差(SD)和kappa统计量来评估一致性。通过计算平均差异来描述个体之间和个体内部分级的系统差异。

结果

观察者内部一致性“高度一致”,并且在所有视盘特征方面均显著优于观察者之间的一致性(P<0.0001)。在杯盘比估计方面,验光师和眼科医生的观察者内部一致性相当。虽然一些验光师与眼科医生的一致性较高,但验光师和眼科医生之间在垂直杯盘比(P=0.002)和视盘出血(P=0.02)方面的总体一致性明显低于仅眼科医生之间的一致性。眼科医生中观察者间平均差异显著不同于零的情况(7%)少于验光师(67%;χ2=11.63,P<0.001)或验光师与眼科医生之间(69%;χ2=16.7,P<0.001)。有证据表明经验较少的验光师存在对杯盘比系统性低估的情况。

结论

虽然个别验光师在视盘分级方面可以与眼科医生表现出良好的一致性,但个体表现的差异表明,视盘评估方面的培训和认证是验光师参与青光眼共同管理的必要前提。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验