Nanji Keean, Kherani Irfan N, Damji Karim F, Nyenze Muindi, Kiage Dan, Tennant Matthew T
Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2020 Jul 20;27(2):91-99. doi: 10.4103/meajo.MEAJO_144_19. eCollection 2020 Apr-Jun.
This study compares a web-based teleophthalmology assessment with a clinical slit lamp examination to screen for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) among diabetic patients in a rural East African district.
Six hundred and twelve eyes from 306 diabetic patients underwent both a clinical slit lamp examination and a teleretina (TR) assessment by an experienced ophthalmologist. Both assessments were compared for any DR and AMD using the early treatment diabetic retinopathy study and age-related eye disease study grading scales, respectively.
Of the 612 TR assessment photos, 74 (12%) were deemed ungradable due to media opacities, poor patient cooperation, or unsatisfactory photographs. The ability to detect DR and AMD showed a fair agreement (kappa statistic 0.27 and 0.23, respectively) between the TR and clinical slit lamp examination. Relative to a clinical slit lamp evaluation, a positive TR diagnosis carried a 75.0% positive predictive value when diagnosing DR and a 27.3% positive predictive value when diagnosing AMD. A negative TR diagnosis carried a 97.2% negative predictive value for the diagnosis of DR and a 98.1% negative predictive value for the diagnosis of AMD.
When comparing TR assessments to clinical slit lamp examinations to diagnose DR and AMD, there was a fair agreement. Although further validation is needed, the TR approach provides a promising method to diagnose DR and AMD, two major causes of ocular impairment worldwide.
本研究比较基于网络的远程眼科评估与临床裂隙灯检查,以筛查东非农村地区糖尿病患者中的糖尿病视网膜病变(DR)和年龄相关性黄斑变性(AMD)。
306例糖尿病患者的612只眼睛接受了经验丰富的眼科医生的临床裂隙灯检查和远程视网膜(TR)评估。分别使用糖尿病视网膜病变早期治疗研究和年龄相关性眼病研究分级量表,对两种评估的DR和AMD情况进行比较。
在612张TR评估照片中,74张(12%)因介质混浊、患者配合不佳或照片不理想而被判定无法分级。TR与临床裂隙灯检查在检测DR和AMD方面显示出中等程度的一致性(kappa统计量分别为0.27和0.23)。相对于临床裂隙灯评估,TR诊断为阳性时,诊断DR的阳性预测值为75.0%,诊断AMD的阳性预测值为27.3%。TR诊断为阴性时,诊断DR的阴性预测值为97.2%,诊断AMD的阴性预测值为98.1%。
在比较TR评估与临床裂隙灯检查以诊断DR和AMD时,存在中等程度的一致性。尽管需要进一步验证,但TR方法为诊断DR和AMD提供了一种有前景的方法,DR和AMD是全球视力损害的两个主要原因。