From the Department of Ophthalmology (S.A., O.N., A.A., C.N.), Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand; Chiang Mai University Lasik Center (S.A.), Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine (B.M.S.), Aurora, Colorado, USA; Francis I. Proctor Foundation (B.M.S., J.S.M., J.D.K.), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2021 Jul;227:245-253. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.03.029. Epub 2021 Apr 3.
The intent of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of several diagnostic tests for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, and cataract, as well as the proportions of patients with eye disease from each of 3 enrolling clinics.
Diagnostic accuracy study.
Patients ≥50 years old in a diabetes, thyroid, and general medicine clinic were screened using visual acuity, tonometry, and fundus photography. Photographs were graded at the point-of-screening by non-ophthalmic personnel. Participants with positive screening test results in either eye and a 10% random sample with negative results in both eyes were referred for an in-person, reference-standard ophthalmology examination.
Of 889 participants enrolled, 229 participants failed at least 1 test in either eye, of which 189 presented for an ophthalmic examination. An additional 76 participants with completely normal screening test results were referred for examination, of which 50 attended. Fundus photography screening had the highest yield for DR (sensitivity: 67%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39%-87%), visual acuity screening for cataract (sensitivity: 89%; 95% CI: 86%-92%), and intraocular pressure screening for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma (sensitivity: 25%; 95% CI: 14%-40%). The burden of disease was relatively high in all 3 clinics, with at least 1 of the diseases of interest (ie, AMD, DR, glaucoma or suspected glaucoma, or cataract) detected in 25% of participants (95% CI: 17-35%) from the diabeteses clinic, 34% (95% CI: 22%-49%) from the thyroid clinic, and 21% (95% CI: 13%-32%) from the general clinic.
Non-expert eye disease screening in health clinics may be a useful model for detection of eye disease in resource-limited settings.
本研究旨在确定几种用于诊断年龄相关性黄斑变性(AMD)、糖尿病视网膜病变(DR)、青光眼和白内障的诊断测试的诊断准确性,以及来自 3 个入组诊所的每个患者中患有眼部疾病的比例。
诊断准确性研究。
糖尿病、甲状腺和普通内科诊所中≥50 岁的患者接受视力、眼压和眼底照相筛查。照片由非眼科人员在筛查时进行分级。在任何一只眼中进行阳性筛查测试的参与者,以及在两只眼中均为阴性结果的 10%随机样本,被转诊进行面对面的参考标准眼科检查。
在 889 名入组的参与者中,229 名参与者至少有一只眼未通过一项测试,其中 189 名参与者进行了眼科检查。另外 76 名完全正常的筛查测试结果的参与者被转诊进行检查,其中 50 名参与者参加了检查。眼底照相筛查对 DR(敏感性:67%;95%置信区间[CI]:39%-87%)、视力筛查对白内障(敏感性:89%;95%CI:86%-92%)和眼压筛查对青光眼或疑似青光眼(敏感性:25%;95%CI:14%-40%)的检出率最高。所有 3 个诊所的疾病负担都相对较高,在糖尿病诊所的至少 25%(95%CI:17-35%)、甲状腺诊所的 34%(95%CI:22%-49%)和普通诊所的 21%(95%CI:13%-32%)参与者中检测到至少一种感兴趣的疾病(即 AMD、DR、青光眼或疑似青光眼或白内障)。
在卫生诊所进行非专业眼病筛查可能是在资源有限的环境中检测眼病的一种有用模式。