English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose  To determine the level of agreement between trained family physicians (FPs), general ophthalmologists (GOs), and a retinal specialist (RS) in the assessment of non-mydriatic fundus retinography in screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in the primary health-care setting.    Methods  200 Diabetic patients were submitted to two-field non-mydriatic digital fundus camera. The images were examined by four trained FPs, two GOs, and one RS with regard to the diagnosis and severity of DR and the diagnosis of macular edema. The RS served as gold standard. Reliability and accuracy were determined with the kappa test and diagnostic measures.    Results  A total of 397 eyes of 200 patients were included. The mean age was 55.1 (±11.7) years, and 182 (91%) had type 2 diabetes. The mean levels of serum glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c were 195.6 (±87.3) mg/dL and 8.9% (±2.1), respectively. DR was diagnosed in 166 eyes by the RS and in 114 and 182 eyes by GO 1  and GO 2 , respectively. For severity, DR was graded as proliferative in 8 eyes by the RS vs. 15 and 9 eyes by GO 1  and GO 2 , respectively. The agreement between the RS and the GOs was substantial for both DR diagnosis (GO 1   k  = 0.65; GO 2   k  = 0.74) and severity (GO 1   k  = 0.60; GO 2   k  = 0.71), and fair or moderate for macular edema (GO 1   k  = 0.27; GO 2   k  = 0.43). FP 1 , FP 2 , FP 3 , and FP 4  diagnosed DR in 108, 119, 163, and 117 eyes, respectively. The agreement between the RS and the FPs with regard to DR diagnosis was substantial (FP 2   k  = 0.69; FP 3   k  = 0.73; FP 4   k  = 0.71) or moderate (FP 1   k  = 0.56). As for DR severity, the agreement between the FPs and the RS was substantial (FP 2   k  = 0.66; FP 3   k  = 069; FP 4   k  = 0.64) or moderate (FP 1   k  = 0.51). Agreement between the FPs and the RS with regard to macular edema was fair (FP 1   k  = 0.33; FP 2   k  = 0.39; FP 3   k  = 0.37) or moderate (FP 4   k  = 0.51).    Conclusion  Non-mydriatic fundus retinography was shown to be useful in DR screening in the primary health-care setting. FPs made assessments with good levels of agreement with an RS. Non-mydriatic fundus retinography associated with appropriate general physicians training is essential for the DR screening.

frontiers in endocrinology

Non-Mydriatic Fundus Retinography in Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy: Agreement Between Family Physicians, General Ophthalmologists, and a Retinal Specialist