Agreement and reasons for disagreement between photographic and hospital biomicroscopy grading of diabetic retinopathy
Agreement and reasons for disagreement between photographic and hospital biomicroscopy grading of diabetic retinopathy
Aims: to compare agreement level and identify reasons for disagreement between grading of mydriatic digital photographs in a diabetic retinopathy screening service and hospital eye service biomicroscopy grading.
Methods: structured examination findings leading to automatically calculated National Screening Committee grades recorded on an electronic medical record system in the hospital eye service at the first clinic visit after diabetic retinopathy screening service referral between April 2006 and November 2007 were retrospectively compared with the grade at the screening visit that prompted referral. In cases of disagreement, screening images were reviewed.
Results: data on 452 eyes (226 patients) were analysed. For retinopathy, hospital eye service slit-lamp biomicroscopy grades were: R0 (no diabetic retinopathy) in 63 eyes; R1 (background retinopathy) in 251eyes; R2 (pre-proliferative) in 129 eyes and R3 (proliferative) in nine eyes. Diabetic retinopathy screening service grades were in agreement in 350 eyes (77.4%), showed a lower grade in 59 eyes and a higher grade in 43. Agreement was moderate (κ=0.60). The most common reason for disagreement was overgrading of R1 by clinicians. Hospital eye service biomicroscopy maculopathy grades were: M0 (no maculopathy) in 366 eyes and M1 (maculopathy) in 86 eyes. Diabetic retinopathy screening service grades were in agreement in 327 eyes (72.3%), showed a lower grading in five eyes and a higher grade in 120 eyes. Agreement was moderate (κ=0.41). The commonest cause for disagreement was clinicians failing to identify fine macular exudates.
Conclusions: this study of routine clinical services demonstrates moderate agreement between non-medical grading of mydriatic digital retinal photography images and hospital slit-lamp biomicroscopy grading of patients referred with diabetic retinopathy. The majority of errors in grading were attributable to errors by hospital doctors, usually in the direction of under-grading which could be a potential source of clinical risk if treatment is delayed.
Diabetes mellitus, Diabetic retinopathy, Digital photographs, Maculopathy, Screening
741-746
Sallam, A.
150f19eb-a53c-4df1-b426-afe4e73a6d46
Scanlon, P.H.
4e3d2310-c79e-42db-ae29-7a7d6b278aa3
Stratton, I.M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Jones, V.
0221c4ef-04ad-40ce-b52f-fa5ce74da050
Martin, C.N.
3907336a-0ce8-4311-b14b-dd49cab72ebd
Brelen, M.
c75f5a49-3cb5-49d0-9485-46fd11f2f759
Johnston, R.L.
1b161400-5543-415f-85f0-a55790a54013
16 May 2011
Sallam, A.
150f19eb-a53c-4df1-b426-afe4e73a6d46
Scanlon, P.H.
4e3d2310-c79e-42db-ae29-7a7d6b278aa3
Stratton, I.M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Jones, V.
0221c4ef-04ad-40ce-b52f-fa5ce74da050
Martin, C.N.
3907336a-0ce8-4311-b14b-dd49cab72ebd
Brelen, M.
c75f5a49-3cb5-49d0-9485-46fd11f2f759
Johnston, R.L.
1b161400-5543-415f-85f0-a55790a54013
Sallam, A., Scanlon, P.H., Stratton, I.M., Jones, V., Martin, C.N., Brelen, M. and Johnston, R.L.
(2011)
Agreement and reasons for disagreement between photographic and hospital biomicroscopy grading of diabetic retinopathy.
Diabetic Medicine, 28 (6), .
(doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03273.x).
Abstract
Aims: to compare agreement level and identify reasons for disagreement between grading of mydriatic digital photographs in a diabetic retinopathy screening service and hospital eye service biomicroscopy grading.
Methods: structured examination findings leading to automatically calculated National Screening Committee grades recorded on an electronic medical record system in the hospital eye service at the first clinic visit after diabetic retinopathy screening service referral between April 2006 and November 2007 were retrospectively compared with the grade at the screening visit that prompted referral. In cases of disagreement, screening images were reviewed.
Results: data on 452 eyes (226 patients) were analysed. For retinopathy, hospital eye service slit-lamp biomicroscopy grades were: R0 (no diabetic retinopathy) in 63 eyes; R1 (background retinopathy) in 251eyes; R2 (pre-proliferative) in 129 eyes and R3 (proliferative) in nine eyes. Diabetic retinopathy screening service grades were in agreement in 350 eyes (77.4%), showed a lower grade in 59 eyes and a higher grade in 43. Agreement was moderate (κ=0.60). The most common reason for disagreement was overgrading of R1 by clinicians. Hospital eye service biomicroscopy maculopathy grades were: M0 (no maculopathy) in 366 eyes and M1 (maculopathy) in 86 eyes. Diabetic retinopathy screening service grades were in agreement in 327 eyes (72.3%), showed a lower grading in five eyes and a higher grade in 120 eyes. Agreement was moderate (κ=0.41). The commonest cause for disagreement was clinicians failing to identify fine macular exudates.
Conclusions: this study of routine clinical services demonstrates moderate agreement between non-medical grading of mydriatic digital retinal photography images and hospital slit-lamp biomicroscopy grading of patients referred with diabetic retinopathy. The majority of errors in grading were attributable to errors by hospital doctors, usually in the direction of under-grading which could be a potential source of clinical risk if treatment is delayed.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 23 February 2011
e-pub ahead of print date: 16 May 2011
Published date: 16 May 2011
Keywords:
Diabetes mellitus, Diabetic retinopathy, Digital photographs, Maculopathy, Screening
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 487055
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/487055
ISSN: 0742-3071
PURE UUID: f718eb83-7895-486e-a309-304ec3980e4a
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 12 Feb 2024 17:31
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:01
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
A. Sallam
Author:
P.H. Scanlon
Author:
I.M. Stratton
Author:
V. Jones
Author:
C.N. Martin
Author:
M. Brelen
Author:
R.L. Johnston
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics