Pugh J A, Jacobson J M, Van Heuven W A, Watters J A, Tuley M R, Lairson D R, Lorimor R J, Kapadia A S, Velez R
Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
Diabetes Care. 1993 Jun;16(6):889-95. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.6.889.
To define the test characteristics of four methods of screening for diabetic retinopathy.
Four screening methods (an exam by an ophthalmologist through dilated pupils using direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy, an exam by a physician's assistant through dilated pupils using direct ophthalmoscopy, a single 45 degrees retinal photograph without pharmacological dilation, and a set of three dilated 45 degrees retinal photographs) were compared with a reference standard of stereoscopic 30 degrees retinal photographs of seven standard fields read by a central reading center. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated after dichotomizing the retinopathy levels into none and mild nonproliferative versus moderate to severe nonproliferative and proliferative. Two sites were used. All patients with diabetes in a VA hospital outpatient clinic between June 1988 and May 1989 were asked to participate. Patients with diabetes identified from a laboratory list of elevated serum glucose values were recruited from a DOD medical center.
The subjects (352) had complete exams excluding the exam by the physician's assistant that was added later. The sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative likelihood ratios are as follows: ophthalmologist 0.33, 0.99, 72, 0.67; photographs without pharmacological dilation 0.61, 0.85, 4.1, 0.46; dilated photographs 0.81, 0.97, 24, 0.19; and physician's assistant 0.14, 0.99, 12, 0.87.
Fundus photographs taken by the 45 degrees camera through pharmacologically dilated pupils and read by trained readers perform as well as ophthalmologists for detecting diabetic retinopathy. Physician extenders can effectively perform the photography with minimal training but would require more training to perform adequate eye exams. In this older population, many patients did not obtain adequate nonpharmacological dilation for use of the 45 degrees camera.
确定四种糖尿病视网膜病变筛查方法的检测特征。
将四种筛查方法(眼科医生使用直接和间接检眼镜散瞳检查、医师助理使用直接检眼镜散瞳检查、无需药物散瞳的单张45度视网膜照片、一组三张散瞳45度视网膜照片)与由中央阅片中心读取的七个标准视野的立体30度视网膜照片这一参考标准进行比较。将视网膜病变程度分为无和轻度非增殖性与中度至重度非增殖性及增殖性后,计算敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性似然比。使用了两个地点。邀请了1988年6月至1989年5月期间一家退伍军人医院门诊诊所的所有糖尿病患者参与。从国防部医疗中心招募了从实验室血清葡萄糖值升高名单中识别出的糖尿病患者。
除后来增加的医师助理检查外,受试者(352名)均完成了检查。敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性似然比结果如下:眼科医生检查为0.33、0.99、72、0.67;无需药物散瞳的照片检查为0.61、0.85、4.1、0.46;散瞳照片检查为0.81、0.97、24、0.19;医师助理检查为0.14、0.99、12、0.87。
通过药物散瞳后用45度相机拍摄并由经过培训的阅片者读取的眼底照片,在检测糖尿病视网膜病变方面与眼科医生的检查效果相当。医师助理经过最少培训就能有效进行拍照,但进行充分的眼部检查还需要更多培训。在这个老年人群体中,许多患者未获得足够的非药物散瞳以使用45度相机。