Table 6

Optometrists’ sensitivity and specificity for identifying diabetic retinopathy as reported in the current study and previous studies
Sensitivity (95%CI) Specificity (95%CIn
Study Retinal examination method ADR STDR ADR STDR
Our study (2011)
 Community optometrists Image evaluation of digital images 67 (62 to 72) 84 (80 to 89)
Harvey et al (2006)
 Optometrists in a screening program Not available 80 (71 to 89) 99 (98 to 100)
Olson et al (2003)
 Specially trained optometrists Dilated slit-lamp examination 73 (52 to 88) 90 (87 to 93)
Schmid et al (2002)
 Community optometrists Ophthalmoscopy (free choice) 92 (84 to 100) 94 (90 to 98)
Image evaluation of retinal slides 94 (90 to 98) 97 (92 to 100)
Hulme et al (2001)
 Specially trained optometrists Dilated slit-lamp examination 72 87 77 91
Prasad et al (2001)
 Specially trained optometrists Dilated slit-lamp examination 66 (65 to 67) 76 (70 to 81) 97 (97 to 98) 95 (95 to 96)
Gibbins et al (1998)
 Community optometrists Image evaluation of 35 mm slides 88 (83 to 93) 91 (79 to 98) 68 (58 to 68) 83 (79 to 87)
 Specially trained optometrist Image evaluation of 35 mm slides 86 (81 to 91) 97 (90 to 100) 89 (85 to 93) 87 (84 to 91)
Buxton et al (1991)
 Community optometrists Image evaluation of Polaroid images 48 (26 to 69) 94 (92 to 97)

ADR, any diabetic retinopathy, STDR, sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy.

Sundling et al.

Sundling et al. BMC Health Services Research 2013 13:17   doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-17

Open Data