Sensitivity and specificity of fundus photograph in detecting diabetic macular edema

XIONG Yongqun; HE Yushen; XIE Peiwen; ZHENG Yi; LIN Jianwei; LI Yuancun; ZHANG Guihua

doi:10.7619/jcmp.20232028

Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice > 2023 > 27(18): 44-48. > DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20232028

XIONG Yongqun, HE Yushen, XIE Peiwen, ZHENG Yi, LIN Jianwei, LI Yuancun, ZHANG Guihua. Sensitivity and specificity of fundus photograph in detecting diabetic macular edema[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2023, 27(18): 44-48. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20232028

Citation:

PDF (2774 KB)

Sensitivity and specificity of fundus photograph in detecting diabetic macular edema

1.
Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hongkong, Shantou, Guangdong, 515041
2.
Ophthalmic Center, Foshan Second People's Hospital of Guangdong Province, Foshan, Guangdong, 528000

More Information

Received Date: June 25, 2023
Revised Date: August 14, 2023
Available Online: October 08, 2023

Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Objective
To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of fundus photograph in detecting diabetic macular edema (DME) in screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR).
Methods
Data of 1 438 patients with DR were collected. All patients received uncorrected visual acuity, best corrected visual acuity, color fundus photography, and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Using SD-OCT as the gold standard for the diagnosis of DME, the sensitivity, specificity and area under receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of fundus color photography were evaluated.
Results
A total of 1 438 patients with an average age of (57.7±11.0) years were enrolled in this study, with a total of 2 326 eyes. There were 1 412 eyes of background DR (group R1), 710 eyes of pre-proliferative DR (group R2) and 204 eyes of proliferative DR (group R3). The sensitivity of DME detected by fundus photograph was 78.8% (95%CI, 76.1% to 81.2%), the specificity was 56.6% (95%CI, 54.0% to 59.3%), and the AUC was 0.677 (95%CI, 0.659 to 0.696). In group R1, the sensitivity, specificity and AUC of DME detected by fundus photograph were 68.6% (95%CI, 64.2% to 72.7%), 58.8% (95%CI, 69.4% to 75.4%) and 0.637 (95%CI, 0.611 to 0.664), respectively; in the R2 group, the sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 86.3% (95%CI, 82.3% to 89.4%), 52.0% (95%CI, 46.8% to 57.2%) and 0.691 (95%CI, 0.660 to 0.723), respectively; in R3 group, the sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 89.3% (95%CI, 83.8% to 93.2%), 42.9% (95%CI, 28.0% to 59.1%) and 0.661 (95%CI, 0.575 to 0.747), respectively.
Conclusion
The sensitivity of fundus photograph to detect DME in DR screening is high, but the specificity is low, and the use of fundus color imaging alone to screen DME will lead to transfer treatments of nearly half of the patients.
- fundus photograph,
- diabetes,
- macular edema,
- sensitivity,
- specificity,
- spectral domain optical coherence tomography

FullText(HTML)

References (14)

References

[1]	TEO Z L, THAM Y C, YU M, et al. Global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and projection of burden through 2045: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Ophthalmology, 2021, 128(11): 1580-1591. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.04.027
[2]	WONG T Y, CHEUNG C M G, LARSEN M, et al. Diabetic retinopathy[J]. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2016, 2: 16012. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2016.12
[3]	ZHANG G H, CHEN H Y, CHEN W Q, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for diabetic retinopathy in China: a multi-hospital-based cross-sectional study[J]. Br J Ophthalmol, 2017, 101(12): 1591-1595. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310316
[4]	WONG R L, TSANG C W, WONG D S, et al. Are we making good use of our public resources The false-positive rate of screening by fundus photography for diabetic macular oedema[J]. Xianggang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2017, 23(4): 356-364.
[5]	BASKIN D E. Optical coherence tomography in diabetic macular edema[J]. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2010, 21(3): 172-177. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32833866ae
[6]	PETO T, TADROS C. Screening for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema in the United Kingdom[J]. Curr Diab Rep, 2012, 12(4): 338-345. doi: 10.1007/s11892-012-0285-4
[7]	PRESCOTT G, SHARP P, GOATMAN K, et al. Improving the cost-effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema: a prospective, multi-centre, UK study[J]. Br J Ophthalmol, 2014, 98(8): 1042-1049. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304338
[8]	何沁, 韩伟. 抗血管内皮生长因子治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿研究进展[J]. 中国实用眼科杂志, 2017, 35(2): 97-101.
[9]	DATE R C, SHEN K L, SHAH B M, et al. Accuracy of detection and grading of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema using teleretinal screening[J]. Ophthalmol Retina, 2019, 3(4): 343-349. doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2018.12.003
[10]	D'ALOISIO R, GIGLIO R, NICOLA M D, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital retinal fundus image analysis in detecting diabetic maculopathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus[J]. Ophthalmic Res, 2019, 61(2): 100-106. doi: 10.1159/000494499
[11]	VIRGILI G, MENCHINI F, DIMASTROGIOVANNI A F, et al. Optical coherence tomography versus stereoscopic fundus photography or biomicroscopy for diagnosing diabetic macular edema: a systematic review[J]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2007, 48(11): 4963-4973. doi: 10.1167/iovs.06-1472
[12]	BALTATESCU A, STRIGLIA E, TRENTO M, et al. Detection of perimacular red dots and blots when screening for diabetic retinopathy: refer or not refer[J]. Diabetes & Vasc Dis Res, 2018, 15: 356-359.
[13]	KIM B Y, SMITH S D, KAISER P K. Optical coherence tomographic patterns of diabetic macular edema[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2006, 142(3): 405-412, e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.04.023
[14]	SHRESTHA A, MAHARJAN N, SHRESTHA A, et al. Optical coherence tomographic assessment of macular thickness and morphological patterns in diabetic macular edema: prognosis after modified grid photocoagulation[J]. Nepal J Ophthalmol, 2012, 4(1): 128-133.

[1]	LIU Kun, XU Qingyi, ZHU Jun, CHEN Fang. A comparison of macular morphology and microcirculation index in patients with pathological myopic choroidal neovascularization at different ages[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2023, 27(18): 65-69. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20231883
[2]	REN Yizhou, LIU Xiaorong, LI Zhe, XU Min, CHEN Fang, GAN Chunlan. Quantitative study of vessel density in optic disc and macular region in patients with nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2023, 27(4): 70-75, 79. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20222588
[3]	SHEN Yongzhi, HUANG Jiali, XIAN Kegong, LI Zhihui, ZHAO Fentu. Application of optical coherence tomography angiography in fundus screening in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2023, 27(4): 56-60. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20222539
[4]	WU Huihui, ZHANG Xue, WANG Yan, LIU Yan, LUO Na, CHEN Fang. Quantitative study of optic disc blood flow density and thickness of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer in patients with diabetes mellitus[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2022, 26(7): 57-61. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20213748
[5]	ZHOU Chunshan, HUANG Yan, YAN Wenchao. Value of computed tomography scan versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of pancreatic cystadenocarcinoma[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2020, 24(20): 47-50. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.202020013
[6]	ZHAO Chenghua. Value of artificial intelligence assisted diagnostic system combined with CT test in diagnosis of pulmonary nodules[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2020, 24(19): 9-11. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.202019003
[7]	LU Cuihong, ZHANG Baoyuan. Brain computed tomography findings and their diagnostic value in elderly patients with cerebral hemorrhage[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2019, 23(24): 8-10. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.201924003
[8]	GONG Yujing, WU Binghui, SUO Yan, LU Huiqin, QU Xiaoyu. Characteristics of choroidal neovascularization in optical coherence tomography angiography versus fluorescein angiography[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2019, 23(22): 14-16. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.201922005
[9]	TIAN Juan, WANG Huifang, DONG Jianghua. Value of abdominal computed tomography in evaluating extramural vascular invasion of gastric cancer[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2019, 23(7): 29-31, 36. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.201907008
[10]	JIANG Hongfen, GU Jie, XU Yanling, MENG Haoyu, ZHANG Dingguo, JIA Enzhi, CHEN Leilei, WANG Liansheng, SHI Dongmei. Perioperative nursing of new generation optical coherence tomography in diagnosis of percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2018, (12): 4-7. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.201812002

Cited By

Cited by

Periodical cited type(15)

1.	薛彦霞，刘雨情，续自凤. 升降散加减治疗重症肺炎(痰热壅肺型)的效果及对炎症因子和外周血T淋巴细胞群的影响. 中外医疗. 2024(09): 31-34 .
2.	张敏. 中医定向透药疗法对肺炎患儿临床疗效及炎性因子水平的影响. 反射疗法与康复医学. 2024(17): 8-10+17 .
3.	李文艳，许志强. 呼吸机相关肺炎危重症患者使用合生元制剂联合肠内营养序贯治疗的临床研究. 中国药物与临床. 2024(20): 1341-1345 .
4.	闵翼，殷智，潘旭. 清金降火汤治疗痰热壅肺型肺炎的临床研究. 航空航天医学杂志. 2023(01): 66-68 .
5.	李思灵，颜沃志，廖夏萍. 纤维支气管镜下盐酸氨溴索注射液肺泡灌洗治疗COPD合并呼吸衰竭的效果. 中国医学创新. 2023(02): 50-54 .
6.	郑相，范青红，邱芳晖. 清肺化痰汤联合西医常规治疗呼吸机相关性肺炎老年患者临床研究. 新中医. 2023(04): 21-24 .
7.	董璐阳，张琳，李怡辉. 中医护理干预对呼吸机相关肺炎患者血气指标、生活质量的影响. 实用中医内科杂志. 2023(02): 80-83 .
8.	丁鑫，钱占红. 升降散对脓毒症所致急性肺损伤小鼠的保护作用. 环球中医药. 2023(04): 591-597 .
9.	罗志辉，王昆秀，张艳琳，陈子琴，陈贝，陈佳，周婷，顾骁磊，李崇立，闫鹏，田玲玲，徐驰成，陈柏霖，陈松，祁青. 回顾性分析三消饮加减方治疗轻型/普通型新型冠状病毒肺炎患者的临床疗效. 中国实验方剂学杂志. 2022(01): 150-156 .
10.	周同鑫，石静娟，裴昶，曹振华，殷智，钱丽. “支炎一号”方治疗成人痰热壅肺型支气管扩张临床疗效分析. 中外医疗. 2022(02): 103-106 .
11.	章文莉，汪芬华，陈梅. 天枢穴贴敷联合升降散保留灌肠治疗呼吸机相关性肺炎52例. 中国中医药科技. 2022(05): 931-932+935 .
12.	马文静，张维利，刘素梅，祁佩红. 加味温胆汤对痰湿蕴肺型慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期患者炎症细胞因子表达及BODE指数的影响. 中医药信息. 2022(09): 53-57+62 .
13.	姜立娟，魏岩，张文风. 升降散证治探微. 长春中医药大学学报. 2022(10): 1063-1066 .
14.	张爱宝，白小丽，成媛，薛云霞. 超声脉冲电导辅助治疗小儿支气管肺炎的临床观察. 中国民间疗法. 2021(15): 77-79 .
15.	刘蓉. 心外科ICU呼吸机相关性肺炎患者病原菌的分布分析与研究. 名医. 2020(10): 85-86 .

Other cited types(2)

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Article views (162) PDF downloads (9) Cited by(17)

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Sensitivity and specificity of fundus photograph in detecting diabetic macular edema