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.
Digital image may be better for screening
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
I work as an ophthalmic photographer, but I have no involvement
in screening. Prasad et al assert that screening for diabetic
retinopathy by optometrists is superior to photographic screening.1 This is questionable for several reasons.
Firstly, biomicroscopy detects macular oedema, and more of the retina can be examined. Both are true, but macular oedema will be accompanied by reduced visual acuity, which is easily measured. Treatable retinopathy is most likely to be found around the posterior pole. Is there an obvious advantage in examining the periphery?
Secondly, photography has a high technical failure rate compared with
ophthalmology. Careful reading of the paper cited as evidence for this
does not give a failure rate for photography of 14%. Of 326 patients,
six were ungradable by any means. Twelve of the remaining 320 patients
could not be photographed because of posture or tremor. A further 34 patients were ungradeable; 18 of them had opacities
Read all Rapid Responses