Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/77080
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSomanguan Ausayakhunen_US
dc.contributor.authorBlake M. Snyderen_US
dc.contributor.authorOnnisa Nanegrungsunken_US
dc.contributor.authorAtitaya Apivatthakakulen_US
dc.contributor.authorChanusnun Narongchaien_US
dc.contributor.authorJason S. Meloen_US
dc.contributor.authorJeremy D. Keenanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-16T07:22:27Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-16T07:22:27Z-
dc.date.issued2021-07-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn18791891en_US
dc.identifier.issn00029394en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85107160635en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.ajo.2021.03.029en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85107160635&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/77080-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The intent of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of several diagnostic tests for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, and cataract, as well as the proportions of patients with eye disease from each of 3 enrolling clinics. Design: Diagnostic accuracy study. Methods: Patients ≥50 years old in a diabetes, thyroid, and general medicine clinic were screened using visual acuity, tonometry, and fundus photography. Photographs were graded at the point-of-screening by non-ophthalmic personnel. Participants with positive screening test results in either eye and a 10% random sample with negative results in both eyes were referred for an in-person, reference-standard ophthalmology examination. Results: Of 889 participants enrolled, 229 participants failed at least 1 test in either eye, of which 189 presented for an ophthalmic examination. An additional 76 participants with completely normal screening test results were referred for examination, of which 50 attended. Fundus photography screening had the highest yield for DR (sensitivity: 67%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39%-87%), visual acuity screening for cataract (sensitivity: 89%; 95% CI: 86%-92%), and intraocular pressure screening for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma (sensitivity: 25%; 95% CI: 14%-40%). The burden of disease was relatively high in all 3 clinics, with at least 1 of the diseases of interest (ie, AMD, DR, glaucoma or suspected glaucoma, or cataract) detected in 25% of participants (95% CI: 17-35%) from the diabeteses clinic, 34% (95% CI: 22%-49%) from the thyroid clinic, and 21% (95% CI: 13%-32%) from the general clinic. Conclusions: Non-expert eye disease screening in health clinics may be a useful model for detection of eye disease in resource-limited settings.en_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleClinic-Based Eye Disease Screening Using Non-Expert Fundus Photo Graders at the Point of Screening: Diagnostic Validity and Yielden_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleAmerican Journal of Ophthalmologyen_US
article.volume227en_US
article.stream.affiliationsUniversity of Colorado School of Medicineen_US
article.stream.affiliationsUniversity of California, San Franciscoen_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.