Comparison of dilated fundus examinations with seven-field stereo fundus photographs in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial.

Kleins Lab // Matthew Davis // Publications // Sep 01 2009

PubMed ID: 18406632

Author(s): Emanuele N, Klein R, Moritz T, Davis MD, Glander K, Anderson R, Reda D, Duckworth W, Abraira C; VADT Study Group. Comparison of dilated fundus examinations with seven-field stereo fundus photographs in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial. J Diabetes Complications. 2009 Sep-Oct;23(5):323-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2008.02.010. Epub 2008 Apr 11. PMID 18406632

Journal: Journal Of Diabetes And Its Complications, Volume 23, Issue 5,

OBJECTIVE The Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) is a 20-medical center, prospective, randomized study of 1792 Type 2 diabetic individuals primarily aimed at determining whether intensive glycemic control prevents macrovascular events. We report a comparison of fundus photographs and ophthalmologic examination at baseline, permitting an evaluation of multiple settings similar to common clinical practice.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A 340-patient subset had both local dilated fundus examinations and centrally read seven-field stereo fundus photographs completed within 60 days of each other (median 28 days). Local examiners were unaware of the stereo photographs.

RESULTS Overall, agreement within one step was 76% and exact agreement between ophthalmoscopy and central gradings of fundus photographs on a five-step retinopathy severity scale was 43% (weighted kappa 0.42, CI 0.35-0.48). In about 90% of disagreements the severity level was higher by photographic grading. The sensitivity for ophthalmoscopy compared to grading of fundus photographs for the detection of any retinopathy was 51% and specificity was 91%. For proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), sensitivity was 61% and specificity 98%. Only one eye was high-risk PDR, and it was detected by both methods. For clinically significant macular edema, these measures were 24% and 98%, respectively. The disagreements were of possible clinical importance in three cases (<1%).

CONCLUSION Most disagreements occurred in eyes rated near the milder end of a category and/or resulted from small differences between the ophthalmoscopic and photographic definitions used in classifying severity. There were reasonably few disagreements of possible clinical significance.