PurposeDespite advances in optical coherence tomography (OCT), clinicians have few prognostic indicators. We chose anomalous features found in OCTs, and retrospectively analysed OCT images for subsequent progression in visual acuity (VA), OCT results and interventions required over 22–24 months.MethodsPutative risk factors were grouped into sets based on similar putative aetiology: sub‐retinal fluid and large cysts, hyperreflective dots, partial/total disorganisation of retinal inner layers (DRIL) and photoreceptor disruption, epiretinal membranes, vitreomacular traction, vitreomacular adhesion. Eyes were stratified according to how many of these groups of features they displayed (0–4) and were all treated as per protocol and clinical need.ResultsIncreasing risk factors correlated with increasing initial OCT central retinal thickness (CRT) (387 vs. 555) and volume (9.99 vs. 11.28), and poorer initial visual acuity (0.41 vs. 0.60) on presentation.Whilst final CRT results showed no significant differences between the groups (325–248 nm), and no significant differences between numbers of injections performed (6.8 vs. 7.35), more features correlated with poorer VA, both absolute and relative to baseline, irrespective of whether there had been previous treatment.ConclusionsThese features are better prognostic indicators than OCT measurements alone.
PurposeThe England screening service classification of diabetic retinopathy has strict, quality assured criteria to identify potential diabetic maculopathy termed ‘M1’. All new M1 cases identified by the screening service are referred to a hospital service. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the England National Diabetic Eye Screening R1M1 classification of diabetic maculopathy as a criteria for secondary care referral in Portsmouth, UK.MethodsRetrospective audit of all patients referred to Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust with R1M1 pathology from April 2013 to January 2014. The total number of referrals received for this period was noted as well as the number of patients followed up in subsequent care pathways. Follow‐up data on those who remained under hospital care is presented for three years.ResultsA total of 306 diabetic patients were referred to Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust for R1M1 pathology over a 10 month period. At the first hospital appointment 135 (44%) had no fluid present on macular SD OCT and were either referred back to screening if the M1 features had resolved (65) or followed up with retinal images (70). 115 (38%) patients were considered to require further follow‐up in secondary care. Of those patients remaining in secondary care 70 remained in active follow up 3 years later.ConclusionsThese results would suggest that 44% of those with M1 features have no evidence of diabetic maculopathy on OCT at the initial hospital appointment and were discharged to community screening. Follow‐up for over three years in a secondary care setting is required by 23%. Secondary service could be better utilised by streamlining referrals either by refining the R1M1 classification or developing community based OCT service.
PurposeTo determine if the reason(s) stated by the optometrist affect the positive predictive value (PPV) of referrals for suspected glaucoma.MethodsOptometrist referrals in Portsmouth are streamlined though the Glaucoma Referral Refinement Scheme (GRRS). We retrospectively analysed 100 ‘positive’ and 100 ‘negative’ referrals to the GRRS. Positives: those referred on to a secondary care glaucoma clinic; negatives: those discharged from the GRRS. Reason(s) for referral were determined and classified: intraocular pressure (IOP) optic disc changes (OD), visual field defect (VF), shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD). Since negative referrals to GRRS are four times more prevalent than positives, we calculated a ‘corrected’ PPV for each reason by multiplying the number of negatives by 4.ResultsThe overall PPV was 0.16. 70.4% cases were referred for a single reason (47.2% IOP, 12.2% OD, 8.8% VF, 2.4% ACD); the PPV was 0.11 for IOP and for OD, 0.05 for VF, 0.17 for ACD. 26.2% were referred for two reasons; the PPV was 0.47 for IOP + OD, 0.21 for OD + VF and 0.14 for IOP + VF. 4.2% were referred for IOP + OD + VF with a PPV of 0.62. Positive family history of glaucoma (21.4% referrals) did not increase PPV. The GRRS increased the PPV to 0.8.ConclusionsThe majority of patients are referred for a single reason, yet the chance of a positive diagnosis is low. Accuracy is increased when IOP is reported in combination with OD, but VF adds little value as a second parameter. The highest PPV is found when all three reasons are stated (IOP + OD + VF). The proportion of referrals for IOP alone is similar to that found prior to the NICE guidelines. However, the PPV is considerably lower; 0.11 compared to 0.3–0.4 found in previous studies. In the NICE era, refinement schemes play an important role in reducing false positive referrals.
PurposeTo determine if the reason(s) stated by the optometrist affect the positive predictive value (PPV) of referrals for suspected glaucoma.MethodsOptometrist referrals in Portsmouth are streamlined though the Glaucoma Referral Refinement Scheme (GRRS). We retrospectively analysed 100 ‘positive’ and 100 ‘negative’ referrals to the GRRS. Positives: those referred on to a secondary care glaucoma clinic; negatives: those discharged from the GRRS. Reason(s) for referral were determined and classified: intraocular pressure (IOP) optic disc changes (OD), visual field defect (VF), shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD). Since negative referrals to GRRS are four times more prevalent than positives, we calculated a ‘corrected’ PPV for each reason by multiplying the number of negatives by 4.ResultsThe overall PPV was 0.16. 70.4% cases were referred for a single reason (47.2% IOP, 12.2% OD, 8.8% VF, 2.4% ACD); the PPV was 0.11 for IOP and for OD, 0.05 for VF, 0.17 for ACD. 26.2% were referred for two reasons; the PPV was 0.47 for IOP + OD, 0.21 for OD + VF and 0.14 for IOP + VF. 4.2% were referred for IOP + OD + VF with a PPV of 0.62. Positive family history of glaucoma (21.4% referrals) did not increase PPV. The GRRS increased the PPV to 0.8.ConclusionsThe majority of patients are referred for a single reason, yet the chance of a positive diagnosis is low. Accuracy is increased when IOP is reported in combination with OD, but VF adds little value as a second parameter. The highest PPV is found when all three reasons are stated (IOP + OD + VF). The proportion of referrals for IOP alone is similar to that found prior to the NICE guidelines. However, the PPV is considerably lower; 0.11 compared to 0.3–0.4 found in previous studies. In the NICE era, refinement schemes play an important role in reducing false positive referrals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.