Reliability of screening methods for diabetic retinopathy

SIMULATION OF DIABETIC RETINOPATHY UTILIZING CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS

Currently, diabetic retinopathy is still screened as a three-stage classification, which is a tedious strategy and along these lines of this paper focuses on developing an improved methodology. In this methodology, we taught a convolutional neural network form on a major dataset, which includes around 45 depictions to do mathematical analysis and characterization. In this paper, DR is constructed, which takes the enter parameters as the HRF fundus photo of the eye. Three classes of patients are considered — healthy patients, diabetic’s retinopathy patients and glaucoma patients. An informed convolutional neural system without a fully connected model will also separate the highlights of the fundus pixel with the help of the enactment abilities like ReLu and softmax and arrangement. The yield obtained from the convolutional neural network (CNN) model and patient data achieves an institutionalized 97% accuracy. Therefore, the resulting methodology is having a great potential benefiting ophthalmic specialists in clinical medicine in terms of diagnosing earlier the symptoms of DR and mitigating its effects.

Imaging Modalities Employed in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Urbanization has caused dramatic changes in lifestyle, and these rapid transitions have led to an increased risk of noncommunicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes. In terms of cost-effectiveness, screening for diabetic retinopathy is a critical aspect in diabetes management. The aim of this study was to review the imaging modalities employed for retinal examination in diabetic retinopathy screening.

METHODS

The PubMed and Web of Science databases were the main sources used to investigate the medical literature. An extensive search was performed to identify relevant articles concerning "imaging", "diabetic retinopathy" and "screening" up to 1 June 2021. Imaging techniques were divided into the following: (i) mydriatic fundus photography, (ii) non-mydriatic fundus photography, (iii) smartphone-based imaging, and (iv) ultrawide-field imaging. A meta-analysis was performed to analyze the performance and technical failure rate of each method.

RESULTS

The technical failure rates for mydriatic and non-mydriatic digital fundus photography, smartphone-based and ultrawide-field imaging were 3.4% (95% CI: 2.3-4.6%), 12.1% (95% CI: 5.4-18.7%), 5.3% (95% CI: 1.5-9.0%) and 2.2% (95% CI: 0.3-4.0%), respectively. The rate was significantly different between all analyzed techniques (p < 0.001), and the overall failure rate was 6.6% (4.9-8.3%; I2 = 97.2%). The publication bias factor for smartphone-based imaging was significantly higher than for mydriatic digital fundus photography and non-mydriatic digital fundus photography (b = -8.61, b = -2.59 and b = -7.03, respectively; p < 0.001). Ultrawide-field imaging studies were excluded from the final sensitivity/specificity analysis, as the total number of patients included was too small.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the type of the device used, retinal photographs should be taken on eyes with dilated pupils, unless contraindicated, as this setting decreases the rate of ungradable images. Smartphone-based and ultrawide-field imaging may become potential alternative methods for optimized DR screening; however, there is not yet enough evidence for these techniques to displace mydriatic fundus photography.

Incidence of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus and numbers needed to screen: a systematic review

AIM

To investigate the incidence of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy in Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND

In most countries, yearly or biennial screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy in people with Type 2 diabetes are recommended. Fewer screening sessions reduce the effort required of people with Type 2 diabetes and reduce healthcare costs.

METHODS

We conducted a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the COCHRANE Library for studies published betweeen 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2017. Eligible studies were those that included general populations of >100 people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Additional study population criteria were absence of moderate diabetic retinopathy or more severe diabetic retinopathy at last screening session and at least two gradable retinal screening sessions. Outcomes of interest in the included studies were moderate and severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (R2), proliferative diabetic retinopathy (R3) or maculopathy (M1), collectively known as sight-threatening or referable diabetic retinopathy.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were included. In people with Type 2 diabetes without or with only mild diabetic retinopathy at baseline, the average incidence rates of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy were ~1 per 100 person-years and ~8 per 100 person-years, respectively. The average numbers needed to screen to detect one case of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy were 175 and 19 in people without and with mild retinopathy at last screening, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In people with Type 2 diabetes without retinopathy at last screening, the incidence of severe sight-threatening retinopathy at the subsequent screening session was low. In people with mild retinopathy, progression to sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy was nearly 10-fold higher. This review supports lengthening of the screening interval of patients with Type 2 diabetes without retinopathy at last screening session.

Preventing diabetes blindness: cost effectiveness of a screening programme using digital non-mydriatic fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy in a primary health care setting in South Africa

BACKGROUND

South Africa like many other developing countries is experiencing an epidemiologic transition with a marked increase in the non-communicable disease (NCD) burden. Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of incidental blindness in adults. A screening programme using a mobile fundal camera in a primary care setting has been shown to be effective in the country. Information on affordability and cost is essential for policymakers to consider its adoption.

METHODS

Economic evaluation is the comparative analysis of competing alternative interventions in terms of costs and consequences. A cost effectiveness analysis was done using actual costs from the primary care screening programme.

RESULTS

A total of 14,541 patients were screened in three primary healthcare facilities in the Western Cape. Photographs were taken by a trained technician with supervision by an ophthalmic nurse. The photographs were then read by a medical officer with ophthalmic experience. A cost effective ratio of $1206 per blindness case averted was obtained. This included costs for screening and treating an individual. The cost just to screen a patient for retinopathy was $22. The costs of screening and treating all incident cases of blindness due to diabetes in South Africa would be 168,000,000 ZAR ($19,310,344) per annum.

CONCLUSION

Non mydriatic digital fundoscopy is a cost effective measure in the screening and diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy in a primary care setting in South Africa. The major savings in the long term are a result of avoiding government disability grant for people who suffer loss of vision.

Screening and public health strategies for diabetic retinopathy in the Eastern Mediterranean region

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a complication of diabetes mellitus that can cause blindness. As the prevalence of diabetes increases globally and patients live longer, the cases of DR are increasing. To address the visual disabilities due to DR, screening of all diabetics is suggested for early detection. The rationale and principles of DR screening are discussed. Based on the available evidence, the magnitude of DR in countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR) is presented. Public health strategies to control visual disabilities due to DR are discussed. These include generating evidence for planning, implementing standard operating procedures, periodic DR screening, focusing on primary prevention of DR, strengthening DR management, health information management and retrieval systems for DR, rehabilitating DR visually disabled, using low-cost technologies, adopting a comprehensive approach by integrating DR care into the existing health systems, health promotion/counseling, and involving the community. Although adopting the public health approach for DR has been accepted as a priority by member countries of EMR, challenges in implementation remain. These include limitations in the public health approach for DR compared to that for cataract, few skilled workers, poor health systems and lack of motivation in affecting health-related lifestyle changes in diabetics.Visual disabilities due to DR are likely to increase in the coming years. An organized public health approach must be adopted and all stakeholders must work together to control severe visual disabilities due to DR.

Incidence of diabetic retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending the Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Service for Wales: retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence of any and referable diabetic retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending an annual screening service for retinopathy and whose first screening episode indicated no evidence of retinopathy.

DESIGN

Retrospective four year analysis.

SETTING

Screenings at the community based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Service for Wales, United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

57,199 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, who were diagnosed at age 30 years or older and who had no evidence of diabetic retinopathy at their first screening event between 2005 and 2009. 49,763 (87%) had at least one further screening event within the study period and were included in the analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Annual incidence and cumulative incidence after four years of any and referable diabetic retinopathy. Relations between available putative risk factors and the onset and progression of retinopathy.

RESULTS

Cumulative incidence of any and referable retinopathy at four years was 360.27 and 11.64 per 1000 people, respectively. From the first to fourth year, the annual incidence of any retinopathy fell from 124.94 to 66.59 per 1000 people, compared with referable retinopathy, which increased slightly from 2.02 to 3.54 per 1000 people. Incidence of referable retinopathy was independently associated with known duration of diabetes, age at diagnosis, and use of insulin treatment. For participants needing insulin treatment with a duration of diabetes of 10 years or more, cumulative incidence of referable retinopathy at one and four years was 9.61 and 30.99 per 1000 people, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis supports the extension of the screening interval for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus beyond the currently recommended 12 months, with the possible exception of those with diabetes duration of 10 years or more and on insulin treatment.

Role of early screening for diabetic retinopathy in patients with diabetes mellitus: an overview

Diabetes has emerged as a major public health problem in India. It is estimated that there were 40 million persons with diabetes in India in 2007 and this number is predicted to rise to almost 70 million by 2025. The impact of rapid urbanization, industrialization and lifestyle changes has led to an increasing trend in prevalence of diabetes and its associated complications such as neuropathy, nephropathy, vascular diseases (cardiac, cerebral and peripheral) and retinopathy. Diabetic retinopathy is a important cause of avoidable blindness in India. Treatment interventions at early stages of diabetic retinopathy can reduce burden of blindness due to diabetic retinopathy. With the available cost-effective methods of early screening, appropriate strategies/models need to be developed. Such models need to have a well-developed mode for screening, diagnosis and referral at each hierarchal level beginning from primary health centers to specialized institutes for eye care. The National Program for Control of Blindness of India recommends opportunistic screening for identification of diabetic retinopathy. Every opportunity of contact with high-risk cases for diabetes and/or diabetic retinopathy should be utilized for screening, diagnosis and referral. All the stakeholders including the private sector will need to play a role. Along with this, awareness generation and behavior change amongst the diabetics and care support systems should also be part of the overall model. A major role can be played by community participation and improving the health seeking behavior among diabetics in order to reach a larger population and increasing the compliance for continued care.