Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Screening by optometrists is better than screening by fundus photography
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
We have concerns about the National Screening Committee's
recommendations for a risk reduction programme for diabetic retinopathy, in which digital photography is the screening method of
choice.1 The gold standard for fundus examination is slit lamp biomicroscopy performed by an experienced ophthalmologist; this is
the standard on which treatment decisions are made. The same technique
used by other trained professionals in a screening environment
duplicates the gold standard.
Slit lamp biomicroscopy has advantages over fundus photography. It offers a stereoscopic view, thereby detecting diffuse macular oedema that is missed by photography. The entire post-equatorial retina can be examined with this technique, whereas even seven-field photography misses about 17% of the retina.2
The technical failure rate of photography is high and has been reported
to be 14.4%, compared with only 2.2% for ophthalmoscopy in the same
group.3 In our district the technical failure rate of slit
lamp biomicroscopy is
Read all Rapid Responses