1,721,053 research outputs found
Epidemiological issues in diabetic retinopathy.
No full textThere is currently an epidemic of diabetes in the world, principally type 2 diabetes that is linked to changing lifestyle, obesity, and increasing age of the population. Latest estimates from the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) forecasts a rise from 366 million people worldwide to 552 million by 2030. Type 1 diabetes is more common in the Northern hemisphere with the highest rates in Finland and there is evidence of a rise in some central European countries, particularly in the younger children under 5 years of age. Modifiable risk factors for progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) are blood glucose, blood pressure, serum lipids, and smoking. Nonmodifiable risk factors are duration, age, genetic predisposition, and ethnicity. Other risk factors are pregnancy, microaneurysm count in an eye, microaneurysm formation rate, and the presence of any DR in the second eye. DR, macular edema (ME), and proliferative DR (PDR) develop with increased duration of diabetes and the rates are dependent on the above risk factors. In one study of type 1 diabetes, the median individual risk for the development of early retinal changes was 9.1 years of diabetes duration. Another study reported the 25 year incidence of proliferative retinopathy among population-based cohort of type 1 patients with diabetes was 42.9%. In recent years, people with diabetes have lower rates of progression than historically to PDR and severe visual loss, which may reflect better control of glucose, blood pressure, and serum lipids, and earlier diagnosis
Disengagement and loss to follow-up in intravitreal injection clinics for neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Full text linkBackground/Objectives
Timely assessment and treatment of patients with neovascular AMD (nAMD) are crucial to preservation of vision. Loss to follow up (LTFU) in these patients is a problem but this has not been systematically investigated.
Subjects/Methods
A retrospective review of electronic medical records of patients with nAMD first treated with anti-VEGF therapy from 1st Jan 2014 to 31st Dec 2018, was conducted in January 2021. Any patient not seen for more than 12 months was classed as no longer attending.
Results
Of the 1328 patients who attended between 2014 and 2018, 348 had failed to attend and were eligible for inclusion in this study. Reasons noted for discontinuation of care: discharged by clinician (33.3%), died (20.7%), moved to another unit outside of area (17.5%), stopped attending due to ill-health (13.5%), discharged due to failure to attend (5.6%) and patient choice to no longer attend (4.6%). There were 16 (4.6%) who did not receive any further appointments despite clinician request for follow-up. After 5 years, 50.5% of patients were no longer attending for treatment. Age was a factor in failure to attend, with 7 out of 12 patients aged >100 years no longer being followed up, compared to 1 out of 11 of 50–59 year-olds.
Conclusions
When analysing visual outcomes in an AMD service it is important to characterise the patients who are lost to follow up. The outcomes for this group may be avoidably poor and understanding the factors influencing LTFU rate is crucial to addressing shortcomings in a hospital AMD service
Agreement between photographic screening and hospital biomicroscopy grading of diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy
No full textPurpose: to examine the level of agreement and reasons for disagreement between grading of diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy using mydriatic digital photographs in a diabetic retinopathy screening service (DRSS) and hospital eye service (HES). Methods: English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme grades for diabetic retinopathy prospectively recorded on a hospital electronic medical record were compared to the grades from the DRSS event that prompted referral. In cases of disagreement, images were reviewed. Results: data for 1,501 patients (3,002 eyes) referred between 2008 and 2011 were analyzed. The HES retinopathy grades were R0 (no retinopathy) in 341 eyes, R1 (background retinopathy) in 1,712 eyes, R2 (pre-proliferative retinopathy) in 821 eyes, and R3 (proliferative retinopathy) in 128 eyes. The DRSS grades were in agreement in 2,309 eyes (76.9%), recorded a lower grade in 227 eyes, and recorded a higher grade in 466 eyes. Agreement was substantial (κ = 0.65). The commonest cause for disagreement was overgrading of R1 as R2 by hospital clinicians. The HES maculopathy grades were M0 (no maculopathy) in 2,267 eyes and M1 (maculopathy) in 735 eyes. The DRSS were in agreement in 2,111 eyes (70.2%), recorded a lower grade in 106 eyes, and recorded a higher grade in 785 eyes. Agreement was fair (κ = 0.39). The commonest cause for disagreement was hospital clinicians missing fine exudates. Conclusions: this study establishes a benchmark standard for agreement between HES and DRSS grading. Review of DRSS and grading reports images for newly referred patients is likely to improve levels of agreement, particularly for diabetic retinopathy, and should be strongly encouraged.</p
Cost-effectiveness of digital surveillance clinics with optical coherence tomography versus hospital eye service follow-up for patients with screen-positive maculopathy
Full text linkAnnually 2.7 million individuals are offered screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in England. Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography (SD-OCT) has the potential to relieve pressure on NHS services by correctly identifying patients who are screen positive for maculopathy on two-dimensional photography without evidence of clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), limiting the number of referrals to hospitals. We aim to assess whether the addition of SDOCT imaging in digital surveillance clinics is a cost-effective intervention relative to hospital eye service (HES) follow-up. We used patient-level data from the Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Service linked to the local digital surveillance programme and HES between 2012 and 2015. A model was used to simulate the progression of individuals with background diabetic retinopathy (R1) and diabetic maculopathy (M1) following DR screening across the clinic pathways over 12 months. Between January 2012 and December 2014, 696 people undergoing DR screening were found to have screen-positive maculopathy in at least one eye for the first time, with a total of 766 eyes identified as having R1M1. The mean annual cost of assessing and surveillance through the SD-OCT clinic pathway was £101 (95% CI: 91-139) as compared with £177 (95%CI: 164-219) under the HES pathway. Surveillance under an SD-OCT clinic generated cost savings of £76 (95% CI: 70-81) per patient. Our analysis shows that SD-OCT surveillance of patients diagnosed as R1M1 at DR screening is not only cost-effective but generates considerable cost savings
A simple risk stratification for time to development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy.
Full text linkOBJECTIVE: The American Diabetes Association and the English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Program recommend annual screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) with referral to ophthalmology clinics of patients with sight-threatening DR (STDR). Using only longitudinal data from retinal photographs in the population-based NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Program in Gloucestershire, we developed a simple means to estimate risk of STDR. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: From 2005, 14,554 patients with no DR or mild nonproliferative DR only at two consecutive annual digital photographic screenings were categorized by the presence of DR in neither, one, or both eyes at each screening and were followed for a further median 2.8 years. RESULTS: Of 7,246 with no DR at either screening, 120 progressed to STDR, equivalent to an annual rate of 0.7%. Of 1,778 with no DR in either eye at first screening and in one eye at second screening, 80 progressed to STDR, equivalent to an annual rate of 1.9% and to a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.8) compared with those with no DR. Of 1,159 with background DR in both eyes at both screenings, 299 progressed to STDR equivalent to an annual rate of 11% and an HR of 18.2 (14.7-22.5) compared with individuals with no DR. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the results from 2 consecutive years of photographic screening enables estimation of the risk of future development of STDR. In countries with systematic screening programs, these results could inform decisions about screening frequency
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
The influence of background diabetic retinopathy in the second eye on rates of progression of diabetic retinopathy between 2005 and 2010.
Full text linkPURPOSE: The Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Programme offers annual digital photographic screening for diabetic retinopathy to a countywide population of people with diabetes. This study was designed to investigate progression of diabetic retinopathy in this programme of the English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. METHODS: Mydriatic digital retinal photographs of people with diabetes screened on at least 2 occasions between 2005 and 2010 were graded and included in this study if the classification at first screening was no DR (R0), background DR in one (R1a) or both eyes (R1b). Times to detection of referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR) comprising maculopathy (M1), preproliferative (R2) or proliferative retinopathy (R3) were analysed using survival models. RESULTS: Data were available on 19 044 patients, 56% men, age at screening 66 (57-74) years (median, 25th, 75th centile). A total of 8.3% of those with R1a and 28.2% of those with R1b progressed to any RDR, hazard ratios 2.9 [2.5-3.3] and 11.3 [10.0-12.8]. Similarly 7.1% and 0.11% of those with R1a progressed to M1 and R3, hazard ratios 2.7 [2.3-3.2] and 1.6 [0.5-5.0], compared to 21.8% and 1.07% of those with R1b, hazard ratio 9.1 [7.8-10.4] and 15.0 [7.1-31.5]. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of progression is significantly higher for those with background DR in both eyes than those with background retinopathy in only one or in neither eye
Development of a cost-effectiveness model for optimisation of the screening interval in diabetic retinopathy screening
Full text linkBACKGROUND:
The English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme was established in 2003. Eligible people are invited annually for digital retinal photography screening. Those found to have potentially sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) are referred to surveillance clinics or to Hospital Eye Services.
OBJECTIVES:
To determine whether personalised screening intervals are cost-effective.
DESIGN:
Risk factors were identified in Gloucestershire, UK using survival modelling. A probabilistic decision hidden (unobserved) Markov model with a misgrading matrix was developed. This informed estimation of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in patients without STDR. Two personalised risk stratification models were employed: two screening episodes (SEs) (low, medium or high risk) or one SE with clinical information (low, medium-low, medium-high or high risk). The risk factor models were validated in other populations.
SETTING:
Gloucestershire, Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia (all UK).
PARTICIPANTS:
People with diabetes in Gloucestershire with risk stratification model validation using data from Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Personalised risk-based algorithm for screening interval; cost-effectiveness of different screening intervals.
RESULTS:
Data were obtained in Gloucestershire from 12,790 people with diabetes with known risk factors to derive the risk estimation models, from 15,877 people to inform the uptake of screening and from 17,043 people to inform the health-care resource-usage costs. Two stratification models were developed: one using only results from previous screening events and one using previous screening and some commonly available GP data. Both models were capable of differentiating groups at low and high risk of development of STDR. The rate of progression to STDR was 5 per 1000 person-years (PYs) in the lowest decile of risk and 75 per 1000 PYs in the highest decile. In the absence of personalised risk stratification, the most cost-effective screening interval was to screen all patients every 3 years, with a 46% probability of this being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Using either risk stratification models, screening patients at low risk every 5 years was the most cost-effective option, with a probability of 99-100% at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. For the medium-risk groups screening every 3 years had a probability of 43-48% while screening high-risk groups every 2 years was cost-effective with a probability of 55-59%.
CONCLUSIONS:
The study found that annual screening of all patients for STDR was not cost-effective. Screening this entire cohort every 3 years was most likely to be cost-effective. When personalised intervals are applied, screening those in our low-risk groups every 5 years was found to be cost-effective. Screening high-risk groups every 2 years further improved the cost-effectiveness of the programme. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimated incremental costs and in the incremental QALYs, particularly with regard to implications of an increasing proportion of maculopathy cases receiving intravitreal injection rather than laser treatment. Future work should focus on improving the understanding of risk, validating in further populations and investigating quality issues in imaging and assessment including the potential for automated image grading
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
