HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Extract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Soto-Pedre, E. Articles by Vázquez, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Soto-Pedre, E. Articles by Vázquez, J. A. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Response to Gómez-Ulla et al.

¹ European Innovative Biomedicine Institute (EIBI), Cantabria, Spain
² Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital of Cruces Plaza de Cruces Vizcaya, Spain
³ Diabetes Outpatient Unit, Department of Endocrinology, Hospital of Cruces, Vizcaya, Spain

We strongly disagree with the assertion of Gómez-Ulla et al. (1) that European protocols did not define any standards by which diabetic retinopathy screening programs should be assessed. Recently, Bachmann and Nelson (2) pooled the data from many available screening studies, dated up to 1996, and determined that retinal photography was the screening test of choice. In fact, the U.K. National Screening Committee was considering this topic as a possible national priority. In addition, a cross-sectional epidemiologic study on 258 randomly selected diabetic patients in Spain was published by Hernáez-Ortega et al. (3) in 1998. The authors compared the efficiency of a 45° nonmydriatic retinal camera with a Polaroid instant film versus the standard method, and they concluded that fundus photography would be advisable for its use in medical settings that usually control for potential ophthalmologic complications resulting from diabetes (3).

Gómez-Ulla et al. (1) concluded in their article that sending digital retinal images via the Internet was a suitable method for detecting and grading diabetic retinopathy in a nonselected diabetic population. This conclusion was reached after comparison between grading by direct examination and grading by inspecting digital images. However, we would like to point out some methodological issues in their article that could invalidate the generalization of their results. What do we know about their patients? The authors stated that 70 consecutive diabetic patients were recruited either from an endocrinology and/or an ophthalmology unit, but they did not describe their study population (i.e., age, sex, diabetes type, diabetes duration, etc.). Otherwise, it seems that this diagnostic method will work equally well despite the population. It is well-known that older populations will have a lower degree of collaboration, higher degree of media opacities, and smaller pupil size. We also suggest that the authors pull together those patients excluded from their analysis (i.e., seven patients with opaque cataract and seven with poor image quality) to provide the percentage of eyes that did not allow detection of retinopathy with their proposed method (i.e., 10%). Hernáez-Ortega et al. (3) reported 6.6% of ungradable fundus photography in a much larger study population of diabetic patients in the North of Spain.

Kappa (), the measure of agreement corrected for chance, may be interpreted as the proportion of the best possible improvement in agreement beyond chance that was actually obtained by the observers. The authors calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to determine agreement on the stage of diabetic retinopathy. The authors should have noted that the ICC can be interpreted as a special form of weighted . In fact, when the variable is ordinal, calculating a weighted is preferable (4).

Therefore, we recommend that the authors provide the missing data on their study population to show how much it influenced their results. We also suggest the calculation of a weighted to determine agreement on degree of diabetic retinopathy.

Footnotes

Address correspondence to Enrique Soto-Pedre MD, MSC, EIBI, C/Jardines #2, 1-G, 39700 Cantabria, Spain. E-mail: eibi{at}eurodiab.com.

References

1. Gómez-Ulla F, Fernandez MI, Gonzalez F, Rey P, Rodriguez M, Rodriguez-Cid MJ, Casanueva FF, Tome MA, Garcia-Tobio J, Gude F: Digital retinal images and teleophthalmology for detecting and grading diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care 25:1384–1389, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
2. Bachmann MO, Nelson S: Impact of diabetic retinopathy screening on a British district population: case detection and blindness prevention in an evidence-based model. J Epidemiol Community Health 52:45–52, 1998[Abstract]
   
3. Hernáez-Ortega MC, Soto-Pedre E, Vázquez JA, Gutiérrez MA, Asua J: Study of the efficiency of a non-mydriatic retinal camera for the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy (Spanish). Rev Clin Esp 198:194–199, 1998[Medline]
   
4. Fleiss JL, Cohen J: The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 33:613–619, 1973
   

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Extract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Soto-Pedre, E. Articles by Vázquez, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Soto-Pedre, E. Articles by Vázquez, J. A. Social Bookmarking                What's this?